US Army Corps of Engineers Portland District Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study DRAFT Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment November 2017 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Executive Summary The Willamette River basin is located entirely within the state of Oregon, beginning south of Cottage Grove, and extending approximately 187 miles to the north where the Willamette River flows into the Columbia River. The basin is more than 11,200 square miles, averages 75 miles in width, and encompasses approximately 12 percent of the total area of the state (Figure ES-1). Within the watershed are most of the state’s population (nearly 70 percent), larger cities, and major industries. The basin also contains some of Oregon’s most productive agricultural lands and supports nationally and regionally important fish and wildlife species. Thirteen of Oregon’s thirty-six counties intersect or lie within the boundary of the Willamette River basin. Through a series of Flood Control Acts the U.S. Congress authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to construct, operate, and maintain thirteen major dams1 in the Willamette River basin. Collectively, these dams, reservoirs and associated infrastructure are known as the Willamette Valley Project (WVP). With a combined conservation storage capacity of approximately 1,590,000 acre-feet, the WVP is capable of providing important benefits for flood damage reduction, navigation, hydropower, irrigation, municipal and industrial water supply, flow augmentation for pollution abatement and improved conditions for fish and wildlife, and recreation. Feasibility Study History The Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study began in 1996 to investigate future Willamette River basin water demand. In 1999, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed the bull trout as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In 1999, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) listed both the Upper Willamette River (UWR) spring Chinook salmon and the UWR winter-run steelhead as threatened species. The ongoing effects on these ESA-listed fish from the continued operation of the WVP were the subject of formal Section 7 consultation under the ESA. The feasibility study was put on hold in 2000 pending resolution of ESA consultation (detailed below). The feasibility study was re-initiated in 2015 with the goal of reallocating WVP conservation storage for the benefit of ESA-listed fish (F&W), agricultural irrigation (AI), and municipal and industrial (M&I) water supply, while continuing to fulfill other project purposes. The study documented in this integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment analyzes current water uses in the basin for F&W, M&I, and AI, provides projections of water needs for these three project purposes, and develops a combined conservation storage reallocation and water management plan that would provide the most public benefit within the policies and regulations of the Corps and the state of Oregon. The non-federal sponsor for the feasibility study is the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD). 1 Construction completion dates: Fern Ridge (1941), Cottage Grove (1942), Dorena (1949), Big Cliff (1953), Detroit (1953), Lookout Point (1954), Dexter (1954), Hills Creek (1961), Cougar (1963), Fall Creek (1966), Foster (1968), Green Peter (1968); Blue River (1969). Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page i Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Figure ES-1 Willamette River Basin and Reservoir Projects Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page ii Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Willamette Valley Project Stored Water In the state of Oregon, water law distinguishes between diverting water for storage, and releasing water from storage for use; each requires a different water right. In Oregon, the right to store water conveys ownership of the stored water. Because national policy prohibits the Corps from holding state water rights, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has held two Oregon water storage rights on behalf of the federal government for all WVP conservation storage since construction of the WVP was completed. Importantly, Reclamation’s state water rights that allow the federal government to store water in WVP reservoirs were designated exclusively for irrigation. Given this limitation, OWRD would not grant a secondary water right to use WVP stored water to other potential water use categories (e.g., M&I, F&W). In order for non-irrigation use categories (e.g., M&I, F&W) to realize benefits from the reallocation of WVP conservation storage, Reclamation’s storage rights need to undergo a transfer review process to change the character of use to reflect uses other than irrigation. Of the 1,590,000 acre-feet of WVP conservation storage, approximately 75,000 acrefeet of stored water (roughly five percent of total WVP conservation storage) is currently contracted through Reclamation for irrigation. If Reclamation does not file a transfer application for a change in character of use, OWRD cannot grant secondary water rights for the use of WVP stored water for either F&W benefits or M&I peak season water supply. Endangered Species Act Consultation In 2000, the Portland District submitted a Biological Assessment (BA) to the NMFS and USFWS (i.e., “the Services”) to assess the effects of ongoing operation and maintenance of the WVP on ESA-listed species. Because of their coordinated decision-making relative to WVP operation, the BA also identified Reclamation and Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) as Action Agencies. The BA evaluated the likely effects of the continued operation of the WVP on ESA-listed fish and their critical habitat. The proposed action contained in the 2000 BA was based on operation of the WVP prior to the ESA-listing of UWR spring Chinook salmon and winter-run steelhead in 1999. The Action Agencies prepared a revision to the proposed action and a supplement to the 2000 BA, and submitted a Supplemental BA in May 2007. The Supplemental BA included a revised proposed action that would more accurately reflect then-current WVP operations, particularly mainstem and tributary flow modifications implemented after preparation of the 2000 BA. Importantly, the Supplemental BA identified new measures that the Action Agencies have the authority to implement, which include:  Changes to WVP reservoir management implemented subsequent to the 2000 BA, including mainstem and tributary minimum flow objectives;  Completion of the selective withdrawal tower at Cougar Dam and actions underway to address fish passage and related issues at Cougar and Blue River dams under the Willamette Temperature Control Project;  Strategies for reform of fish hatchery operations and associated mitigation;  Habitat restoration actions undertaken on project lands through natural resources stewardship responsibilities, as well as offsite under the Corps General Investigation Program and Continuing Authorities Program; Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page iii Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study  Evaluation of the potential feasibility and effectiveness of proposed major structural modifications at WVP dams to address ESA issues, including improved fish passage and handling, temperature control, and hatchery facilities at WVP dams other than Blue River and Cougar;  Strategies for integration of operational, structural, habitat, and hatchery measures across the basin that enhance their effectiveness and take advantage of synergies that may exist; and  Update and accurately describe implementation of the ongoing research, monitoring, and evaluation program, including a comprehensive program plan that better meets ESA requirements. The Services provided the Action Agencies with their final Biological Opinions (BiOps) in 2008, addressing the effects of WVP operation and maintenance on ESA-listed fish. The NMFS BiOp concluded that the proposed action described in the Supplemental BA caused jeopardy to the ESA-listed UWR Chinook and winter-run steelhead, and included a “reasonable and prudent alternative” (RPA). The USFWS BiOp concluded that the proposed action did not cause jeopardy to the ESA-listed bull trout as long as the RPA from the NMFS BiOp was implemented. Implementing the RPA would minimize possible adverse effects on ESA-listed fish and their critical habitat, and require monitoring and reporting to ensure compliance. It was anticipated that the recommendations in the BiOp would include the use of WVP stored water to meet flow objectives for the Willamette River mainstem and its major tributaries. Since water year 2000, the Corps has adopted and implemented mainstem Willamette River flow objectives at Salem based on recommendations from NMFS and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. From 2000 through 2003, the Corps worked with other federal and state agencies to develop a WVP flow management strategy. This strategy established a continuing framework for meeting both mainstem and tributary flow objectives that relies on monthly meetings and regular coordination teleconferences to provide updates on reservoir and flow conditions in the Willamette River and its tributaries. Implementation of the flow management strategy has resulted in the WVP being operated to meet tributary and mainstem flow objectives to the maximum extent possible for more than 15 years. Purpose and Need for Corps Action The purpose for Corps action is to reallocate the 1,590,000 acre-feet of WVP conservation storage from Joint Use to specific uses in order to fulfill the multi-purpose goals of the WVP. This FR/EA identifies three different needs that could utilize WVP stored water (water held in WVP conservation storage in any given year), and requires specific allocations of conservation storage to meet those needs. 1. Among the issues addressed in the RPA, the Action Agencies must coordinate with OWRD to facilitate conversion of a portion of WVP stored water to instream water rights (RPA 2.9). Although the Corps releases WVP stored water to support ESA-listed fish in tributary reaches, the Corps cannot guarantee that these flows would be maintained throughout the reach. While the Corps has been operating the WVP to meet flow objectives since the year 2000, releases of WVP stored water are not protected instream. This is because OWRD, not the Corps, has enforcement authority over water rights. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page iv Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Reallocating a portion of WVP conservation storage specifically for F&W benefits would facilitate the legal protection of WVP stored water released for instream purposes, as described in RPA 2.9. 2. Of the 1,590,000 acre-feet of WVP conservation storage, approximately 75,000 acre-feet is currently under contract through Reclamation for AI. Reclamation may enter into irrigation contracts up to 95,000 acre-feet per year without the need to consult with the NMFS as established under the 2008 BiOp. WVP conservation storage in excess of 95,000 acre-feet per year would be needed to meet future demand for AI water supply. Although a specific allocation to AI is not necessary for Reclamation to continue to issue water supply contracts in excess of 95,000 acre-feet, a specific allocation would efficiently balance the reallocation of WVP conservation storage. 3. The state of Oregon has long identified the WVP as a potential source for future M&I peak season water supply needs in the basin. Despite the fact that Congress authorized the WVP for multiple purposes, including “relatively low cost for domestic use when current facilities can no longer meet the demand,” no portion of WVP conservation storage is specifically allocated to M&I. Without a specific quantity of WVP conservation storage allocated to M&I, Corps water supply policy does not allow water supply storage agreements to be executed. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative (or future without-project conditions), there would be no Corps action to reallocate WVP conservation storage and no changes to the current operations to utilize WVP stored water to better meet the Congressionally-authorized multiple purposes. With respect to the No Action Alternative, the following assumptions can be made:  The Corps would continue to operate the WVP to meet mainstem and tributary flow objectives as often as possible as described in the 2008 BiOp (NMFS, 2008);  The Corps would continue to operate the WVP to assist Reclamation in meeting their irrigation water contract demands;  Reclamation would continue to issue irrigation water contracts up to, and eventually exceeding, the 95,000 acre-feet per year as described in RPA 3 (NMFS, 2008). As of 2017, Reclamation had issued irrigation water supply contracts for approximately 75,000 acre-feet of water per year, leaving approximately 20,000 acre-feet per year of WVP conservation storage available for new contracts before triggering the analyses and consultation described in RPA 3. Based on the estimated rate of increase in demand for irrigation water, the need would be projected to exceed the 95,000 acre-feet per year limit after 2025;  As described under RPA 3, Reclamation and the Corps would need to “reevaluate the availability of water from conservation storage for the water marketing program” when future irrigation demand exceeds 95,000 acre-feet per year. If Reclamation proposed to issue additional contracts above 95,000 acre-feet per year, re-initiation of ESA consultation would be necessary. Assuming demand for irrigation materializes as projected in this analysis, the consultation would be expected to occur in the early 2020s. It is noteworthy that beyond the required consultation described in RPA 3, there are no Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page v Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study other institutional barriers to restrict Reclamation from issuing irrigation water contracts in excess of 95,000 acre-feet per year in the future;  Without a reallocation of WVP conservation storage, Reclamation would not apply to OWRD for a change in character of use for their storage rights in order to match a proposed reallocation of WVP conservation storage for uses other than irrigation;  Without a change in character of use for Reclamation’s storage rights, a portion of WVP conservation storage would not be specifically allocated for F&W benefits. OWRD would not issue instream water rights for the use of WVP stored water as described in the 2008 BiOp (RPA 2.9). Thus, the Corps would not be able to facilitate OWRD’s conversion of WVP stored water releases for the benefit of ESA-listed fish to instream water rights as described in RPA 2.9;  Without instream water rights for WVP stored water releases intended to benefit ESAlisted fish, releases would continue to be unprotected and continue to be available for use by existing water right holders per Oregon water law; and  Without a change in character of use for Reclamation’s storage rights, future M&I peak season demands would be met through measures that do not include access to WVP stored water. WVP Conservation Storage Reallocation Alternatives Table ES-1 shows peak demands for each of the three use categories. As shown in the table, the sum of the peak season demands (2,077,400 acre-feet) is greater than the amount of total WVP conservation storage (1,590,000 acre-feet). Therefore, a reallocation of WVP conservation storage for all uses at the volumes shown in Table ES-1 is infeasible. Nevertheless, peak season demands were used to develop four reallocation alternatives that would not exceed WVP conservation storage. Table ES-1 Peak Season Demands for WVP Stored Water M&I and AI Stated at Year 2070 Levels Allocation Use Category Fish & Wildlife Peak Demands (acre-feet) Portion of Total (percent) 1,590,000 76.5 Municipal & Industrial 159,750 7.7 Agricultural Irrigation 327,650 15.8 2,077,400 100.0 Total Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page vi Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Reallocation Alternative A: Proportionate Reduction in Storage for all Use Categories Under Reallocation Alternative A, each of the three allocation categories is reduced proportionately from those shown in Table ES-1. Since 1,590,000 acre-feet equals 76.5 percent of 2,077,400 acre-feet (total peak season demand for all three use categories), the reallocation of conservation storage for each use category would proportionally reduced to 76.5 percent of peak season demand (2070 peak season demand levels for M&I and AI). The resulting allocations are shown below with no storage remaining in Joint Use. Reallocation Alternative A (acre-feet) F&W: M&I: AI: Joint Use: 1,216,950 122,250 250,800 0 Reallocation Alternative B: Prioritize Fish and Wildlife Storage at Peak Level Under Reallocation Alternative B, 1,508,600 acre-feet of conservation storage would be allocated to F&W, with 81,400 acre-feet remaining for allocation to AI. While the F&W peak demand is the full 1,590,000 acre-feet of WVP conservation storage, an allocation of 81,400 acre-feet for AI must be made to accommodate the volume of Reclamation contracts expected to be in place by Year 2020 (the beginning of the period of analysis) in order for the reallocation alternative to be institutionally feasible as Reclamation cannot be precluded from fulfilling its expected contract obligations. Under this reallocation alternative there would be no allocation to M&I. The resulting allocations are shown below with no storage remaining in Joint Use. Reallocation Alternative B (acre-feet) F&W: M&I: AI: Joint Use: 1,508,600 0 81,400 0 Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page vii Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Reallocation Alternative C: Prioritize M&I and AI Storage at 2070 Peak Season Demand Levels Under Reallocation Alternative C, M&I would be allocated 159,750 acre-feet of conservation storage, and 327,650 acre-feet of conservation storage would be allocated to AI. The remaining 1,102,600 acre-feet of conservation storage would be allocated to F&W. The resulting allocations are shown below with no storage remaining in Joint Use. Reallocation Alternative C (acre-feet) F&W: M&I: AI: Joint Use: 1,102,600 159,750 327,650 0 Reallocation Alternative D: Reallocation at Reduced Peak Season Demand Levels with Joint Use Flexibility Reallocation Alternative D reflects an approach where a reduced volume of conservation storage is allocated to each use category and a substantial share of conservation storage remains allocated to Joint Use. Allocations by use category for this alternative are shown below. Reallocation Alternative D (acre-feet) F&W: M&I: AI: Joint Use: 962,800 73,300 253,950 299,950 As shown above, 299,950 acre-feet of conservation storage would remain allocated to Joint Use to provide future flexibility, as all use categories could claim Joint Use storage to accommodate future needs as their peak season demands for stored water materialize. Reserving a portion of storage in Joint Use could accommodate unforeseeable changes to demand trends for WVP stored water. For example, with 299,950 acre-feet of conservation storage remaining allocated to Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page viii Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Joint Use, the Corps would have additional flexibility to meet the demands under changing climate conditions. Selection of Reallocation Alternative D As detailed in Section 5, Reallocation Alternatives A, B and C were eliminated from consideration since they do not provide flexibility for future use, demand changes, and changes to reservoir operations related to BiOp implementation. Reallocation Alternative D provides the most flexibility to adapt to changing future conditions and was carried forward as the selected reallocation alternative. Alternative Water Management Plans Development of the TSP also requires the development of water management plans for years when the WVP does not refill to 1,590,000 acre-feet of stored water. Management of stored water during years when the reservoirs do not refill has a substantial effect on the reliability of the WVP to release stored water for authorized purposes. Three alternative water management plans were developed to describe how water shortages would be handled, and are briefly outlined below.  Alternative Management Plan 1: All uses are reduced proportionally during years when WVP conservation storage does not fill to the volume of the allocation for F&W, M&I and AI (1,290,050 acre-feet – total uses from Reallocation Alternative D above). Under this alternative management plan, releases of WVP stored water for the three dedicated use categories would be reduced only when the Joint Use portion of WVP conservation storage does not refill, and each use would be reduced by its proportional share, relative to contracted volumes, not allocated volumes.  Alternative Management Plan 2: Stored water for F&W would be prioritized – up to the allocated amount. Any remaining stored water would be split between M&I and AI on a basis proportional to contracted volumes, not allocated volumes.  Alternative Management Plan 3: Stored water for M&I and AI would be prioritized, up to the contracted amounts. Any remaining stored water would be used for F&W. Only one of the alternative management plans, Management Plan 1, would provide water for all three use categories during most dry years. The other two alternative management plans result in years where one or more use categories would not have access to stored water. In addition, the combination of Reallocation Alternative D and Alternative Management Plan 1 results in allocations being met approximately 80 percent of the time. Tentatively Selected Plan The Tentatively Selected Plan (TSP) is Alternative 3D1, which includes allocations for specific use categories, Reallocation Alternative D, as well as guidelines for managing stored water releases when the conservation pools do not fill to 1,590,000 acre-feet, which is Alternative Management Plan 1. The remainder of this Executive Summary focuses on impacts of the TSP relative to the No Action Alternative. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page ix Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study TSP Impacts to ESA-Listed Fish The NMFS 2008 BiOp establishes mainstem minimum flow objectives on the Willamette River at Salem and Albany, and tributary minimum flow objectives on Willamette River tributaries located downstream of Big Cliff, Blue River, Cougar, Dexter, Fall Creek, Foster, and Hills Creek dams, as depicted in Tables ES-2 and ES-3 below. Mainstem flow objectives at Albany and Salem vary depending on the volume of water stored in the WVP, which defines the classification of a water year. The four classifications are Abundant, Adequate, Insufficient, and Deficit. The water year classification is then used to determine mainstem flow objectives for April through October of that year. Table ES-2 Mainstem BiOp Flow Objectives at Salem and Albany (cfs) Salem Flow Objectives (cfs) Period * † Abundant & Adequate Apr 1-30 * 17,800 May 1-31 * 15,000 Jun 1-15 * 13,000 Jun 16-30 * 8,700 Jul 1-31 † 6,000 Aug 1-15 † 6,000 Aug 16-31 † 6,500 Sep 1-30 † 7,000 Oct 1-31 † 7,000 Deficit Abundant & Adequate Insufficient Deficit * 15,000 -- -- -- * 15,000 -- -- -- * 11,000 † 4,500 † 4,500 † 4,000 * 5,500 † 4,500 † 4,500 † 4,000 † 5,000 † 4,500 † 4,500 † 4,000 † 5,000 † 5,000 † 4,500 † 4,000 † 5,000 † 5,000 † 4,500 † 4,000 † 5,000 † 5,000 † 4,500 † 4,000 † 5,000 † 5,000 † 4,500 † 4,000 Insufficient Salem flow objectives are linearly interpolated between Adequate and Deficit flow objectives based on mid-May system storage Albany Flow Objectives (cfs) Seven-day moving average minimum flow Instantaneous minimum flow Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page x Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Table ES-3 Tributary BiOp Flow Objectives Downstream of WVP Reservoirs (cfs) Period Apr 1-30 May 1-15 May 16-31 Jun 1-30 Jul 1-15 Jul 16-31 Aug 1-31 Sep 1-30 Oct 1-15 Oct 16-31 Big Cliff 1500 1500 1500 1200 1200 1000 1000 1500 1500 1200 Blue River 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Cougar Dexter 300 300 300 400 300 300 300 300 300 300 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 Fall Creek 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 200 200 50 Foster 1500 1500 1100 1100 800 800 800 1500 1500 1100 Hills Creek 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 The Willamette River basin was modeled using the Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) Reservoir System Simulation Program (ResSim) to assess the performance of the No Action Alternative and the TSP in meeting BiOp flow objectives. Performance of the BiOp flow objectives was evaluated for the period April 1 through October 31 in each of 80 simulated years, which provides 214 simulated days over 80 simulated years – a total of 17,120 simulated days. Metrics were developed as a means of evaluating flow objective achievement under the No Action Alternative and the TSP: 1. Flow Objective Achievement on Each Simulated Day; and 2. Percent of Flow Objective Volume of Water Met Table ES-4 below provides a summary performance comparison of the No Action Alternative and the TSP in meeting mainstem and tributary flow objectives under expected demand conditions for WVP stored water releases and permitted M&I live flow diversions. Performance comparisons are shown for the period of record and Abundant, Adequate, Insufficient, and Deficit water year types. The table shows percentages for each, with values for the No Action Alternative provided first. For example, in a comparison of the percent of days over which the flow objective is met, performance may be indicated as 97/96, which denotes that No Action Alternative meets flow objectives 97 percent of the days, and the TSP meets flow objectives on 96 percent of the days. Also included on the table is a graphic indicator of , ,or , where:  indicates that there is no notable difference between the No Action Alternative and the TSP;  indicates a difference of less than two percent between the No Action Alternative and TSP performance with TSP performance superior to the No Action Alternative performance; and  indicates a difference of less than two percent between the No Action Alternative and TSP performance with No Action Alternative performance superior to TSP performance. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page xi Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Table ES-4: Summary of Modeled BiOp Flow Objective Performance Comparison: No Action/TSP Expected WVP Releases and M&I Permitted Live Flow Diversions Performance Metric Salem Mainstem Flow Objective Albany Mainstem Flow Objective Big Cliff Tributary Flow Objective Blue River Tributary Flow Objective Cougar Tributary Flow Objective Dexter Tributary Flow Objective Fall Creek Tributary Flow Objective Foster Tributary Flow Objective Hills Creek Tributary Flow Objective All Years Abundant 44 Yrs Adequate 14 Yrs Insufficient 11 Yrs Deficit 11 Yrs Pct Days Flow Objective Met      90/90 98/98 87/88 78/78 72/72 Pct of Flow Objective Volume Met      99/99 +99/+99 99/99 97/97 95/95 Pct Days Flow Objective Met      90/90 98/98 88/91 79/79 71/71 Pct of Flow Objective Volume Met      99/99 +99/+99 99/99 97/96 94/94 Pct Days Flow Objective Met      98/97 +99/+99 +99/+99 97/97 87/86 Pct of Flow Objective Volume Met      99/99 +99/+99 +99/+99 99/99 95/95 Pct Days Flow Objective Met      +99/+99 100/100 100/100 100/100 +99/99 Pct of Flow Objective Volume Met      +99/+99 100/100 100/100 100/100 +99/99 Pct Days Flow Objective Met      98/98 100/100 99/+99 97/97 89/88 Pct of Flow Objective Volume Met      99/99 100/100 +99/+99 99/99 94/94 Pct Days Flow Objective Met      99/99 100/100 100/100 99/98 96/95 Pct of Flow Objective Volume Met      +99/+99 100/100 100/100 +99/99 98/98 Pct Days Flow Objective Met      98/98 99/99 98/97 98/96 96/94 Pct of Flow Objective Volume Met      99/98 99/99 98/97 99/97 95/93 Pct Days Flow Objective Met      92/92 97/97 94/94 82/83 77/77 Pct of Flow Objective Volume Met      97/97 +99/99 99/99 94/93 91/90 Pct Days Flow Objective Met      +99/99 100/100 100/100 99/99 99/97 Pct of Flow Objective Volume Met      +99/+99 100/100 100/100 +99/99 +99/99  - No notable difference between No Action and TSP performance  - Less than two percent difference between No Action and TSP performance – TSP performance superior  - Less than two percent difference between No Action and TSP performance – No Action performance superior Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page xii Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study The following observations of the TSP’s performance in meeting mainstem and tributary flow objectives can be made from Table ES-4: Salem Mainstem: Flow objectives are never met at a 100 percent level, and the TSP outperforms the No Action Alternative in adequate water type years. When compared across all years, there is no notable difference between the No Action Alternative performance and the TSP performance. Albany Mainstem: Flow objectives are never met at a 100 percent level, and the TSP outperforms the No Action Alternative in adequate water type years. When compared across all years, there is no notable difference between the No Action Alternative performance and the TSP performance. Big Cliff Tributary: Flow objectives are never met at a 100 percent level, and the No Action Alternative out-performs the TSP in deficit water type years. When compared across all years, the No Action Alternative out-performs the TSP in terms of the percentage of days for which BiOp flow objectives are met. Blue River Tributary: Flow objectives are met at a 100 percent level in abundant, adequate, and insufficient water type years. No Action Alternative out-performs the TSP in deficit water type years. When compared across all years, there is no notable difference between the No Action Alternative performance and the TSP performance. Cougar Tributary: Flow objectives are met at a 100 percent level in abundant water type years. The TSP out-performs the No Action Alternative in adequate water year types, and the No Action Alternative out-performs the TSP in deficit water year types. When compared across all years, there is no notable difference between the No Action Alternative performance and the TSP performance. Dexter Tributary: Flow objectives are met at a 100 percent level in abundant and adequate water type years. The No Action Alternative out-performs the TSP in insufficient and deficit water year types. When compared across all years, there is no notable difference between the No Action Alternative performance and the TSP performance. Fall Creek Tributary: Flow objectives are never met at a 100 percent level, and the No Action Alternative out-performs the TSP in adequate, insufficient, and deficit water year types. When compared across all years, the No Action Alternative out-performs the TSP in terms of the percentage BiOp flow objective volume met. Foster Tributary: Flow objectives are never met at a 100 percent level, and the No Action Alternative out-performs the TSP in insufficient water year types. When compared across all years, there is no notable difference between the No Action Alternative performance and the TSP performance. Hills Creek Tributary: Flow objectives are met at a 100 percent level in abundant and adequate water year types, and the No Action Alternative out-performs the TSP in deficit water year types. When compared across all years, the No Action Alternative out-performs the TSP in terms of the percentage of days for which BiOp flow objectives are met. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page xiii Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study TSP Effects on Other Authorized Project Purposes Flood Risk Management would remain a primary purpose for the WVP in the future. The projects would continue to be operated as they are now without changes to the conservation or flood storage seasons, or the flood control, power, conservation, and full pool elevations specified by each project’s water control diagram. Hydropower Production under the TSP would yield an increase in revenues over the No Action Alternative of $100,000 annually. Agricultural Irrigation under the TSP would be essentially unchanged from that described under the No Action Alternative. Municipal and Industrial Water Supply would have access to WVP stored water to cover anticipated peak season supply deficits and, through Joint Use storage, a source for providing system redundancy. Providing an allocation for M&I use would help to fulfill intent of the language included House Doc. 531, Volume 5. Paragraph 198 (“Ample storage in individual reservoirs, therefore, would be available at relatively low cost for domestic use when current facilities can no longer meet the demand.”). Reservoir and Riverine Recreation would incur minor effects under the TSP. There are expected to be no impacts to riverine recreation, because there would be no reduction in WVP stored water releases that would impair downstream recreation. Reservoir recreation under the TSP would incur an average annual decrease of $35,500 in boating-related recreation benefits (reduction measured from the No Action Alternative). TSP Construction-Related Impacts There are expected to be no indirect construction-related effects (i.e., occurring later in time or removed in distance) in the near-term (less than 10 years). Near term growth in M&I peak season demand is expected to be met by entities withdrawing more water from existing infrastructure (intakes that currently draw from the Willamette River or its tributaries) and not requiring construction of new intakes for the use of WVP stored water. There are currently no proposed actions by public or private entities (e.g., M&I suppliers or agricultural irrigators) to construct water intake infrastructure that would not occur, “but for” the Corps’ decision to reallocate storage in the WVP. Longer-term (more than 10 years) projected growth in demand could eventually require infrastructure construction. However, in the absence of proposals for development from applicants, the construction effects of new intakes and distribution infrastructure would be too speculative to allow for meaningful analysis. The temporary and permanent environmental effects from ground disturbance, installation of conveyance pipe, and construction of associated support facilities for accessing water supply for irrigation or M&I are not assessed in detail within this document because the actions are not reasonably foreseeable and in the case of irrigation, are not caused by the TSP. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page xiv Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Table of Contents 1  INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1  1.1  Authority ....................................................................................................................................... 2  1.2  SMART Planning Framework....................................................................................................... 2  1.3  Project Area ................................................................................................................................... 2  1.4  Role of Endangered Species Act Consultation on the Willamette Basin Review Study............... 4  1.4.1  Early Implementation of Flow-Related RPA Measure ......................................................... 6  1.5  Purpose and Need for Corps Action .............................................................................................. 6  1.6  Federal Interest .............................................................................................................................. 7  1.7  Non-Federal Sponsor..................................................................................................................... 7  1.8  Lead Agency and Cooperating Agency Designations ................................................................... 8  1.8.1  Bonneville Power Administration ......................................................................................... 8  1.8.2  U.S. Bureau of Reclamation ................................................................................................. 8  1.8.3  National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ............................... 9  1.8.4  Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service ................................................... 9  1.9  Other Agency Decisions Required ................................................................................................ 9  1.9.1  Reclamation to Request Change to WVP Water Storage Rights Certificates ....................... 9  1.9.2  OWRD to Issue Change in Stored Water Character of Use ................................................ 10  1.9.3  ODFW to Request Conversion of Instream Water Rights for Fish and Wildlife............... 10  1.9.4  OWRD to Issue Secondary Water Rights for Use of Stored Water .................................... 10  1.10  Government to Government / Tribal Coordination ..................................................................... 10  1.11  Relevant Documents and Reports ............................................................................................... 11  2  EXISTING CONDITIONS / AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...................................................... 15  2.1  Willamette Valley Project and System Operational Overview ................................................... 16  2.1.1  Flow Management Coordination ........................................................................................ 17  2.1.2  Flow Management Planning ............................................................................................... 17  2.2  Climate and Climate Change....................................................................................................... 18  2.2.1  Climate Change ................................................................................................................... 18  2.3  Water Quality .............................................................................................................................. 19  2.4  ESA-Listed Fish .......................................................................................................................... 23  2.4.1  Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESU.................................................................. 23  2.4.2  UWR Winter-Run Steelhead DPS ...................................................................................... 25  2.4.3  Bull Trout ............................................................................................................................ 25  Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page xv Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 2.5  Flood Risk Management ............................................................................................................. 28  2.6  Federal Hydroelectric Power Generation .................................................................................... 28  2.7  Agricultural Irrigation Water Use ............................................................................................... 29  2.8  Municipal and Industrial Water Use ........................................................................................... 30  2.9  Reservoir and Riverine Recreation.............................................................................................. 32  2.9.1  Reservoir Recreation ........................................................................................................... 32  2.9.2  Riverine Recreation............................................................................................................. 34  2.10  Navigation ................................................................................................................................... 37  2.11  Cultural Resources and Historic Properties................................................................................. 37  2.11.1  3  Historic Properties............................................................................................................... 37  DEMANDS FOR WILLAMETTE VALLEY PROJECT STORED WATER ............................. 39  3.1  Demand for WVP Stored Water: Fish and Wildlife ................................................................... 39  3.2  Demand for WVP Stored Water: M&I Systems and SSI ........................................................... 42  3.2.1  M&I System Study Area ..................................................................................................... 42  3.2.1  Population Projections ........................................................................................................ 43  3.2.2  M&I System Water Use Metrics ......................................................................................... 46  3.2.3  M&I System Peak Season Water Demand Projections....................................................... 47  3.2.4  Peak Season Supply Evaluation for M&I Systems ............................................................. 48  3.2.5  M&I Systems Peak Season Supply Deficits ....................................................................... 48  3.2.6  M&I System Single Source Redundancy Needs ................................................................. 49  3.2.7  Self-Supplied Industrial Demand ........................................................................................ 50  3.2.8  Total M&I Peak Season Demand for WVP Stored Water .................................................. 52  3.3  Demand for WVP Stored Water: Agricultural Irrigation ........................................................... 53  3.3.1  Agricultural Irrigation Study Area ...................................................................................... 53  3.3.2  2014 Agricultural Irrigation Estimate ................................................................................. 58  3.3.3  Projected Increases in Agricultural Irrigation ..................................................................... 59  3.3.4  Impact of Minimum Perennial Stream Flows on Agricultural Irrigation............................ 60  3.3.5  Total Agricultural Irrigation Demand for WVP Stored Water ........................................... 60  3.4  4  Climate Change-Induced Impacts to WVP Stored Water Demands ........................................... 62  FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS .......................................................................... 64  4.1  Future Without-Project Conditions / No Action Alternative ...................................................... 64  4.2  Measures for M&I Peak Season Water Supply ........................................................................... 65  4.2.1  Screening of Measures ........................................................................................................ 66  4.2.2  Summary of Measures Screening ....................................................................................... 70  4.3  Final Array of Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 70  Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page xvi Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 4.4  Costs of Alternatives for M&I Peak Season Water Supply ........................................................ 72  4.4.1  Application of Non-Federal Measures for M&I Peak Season Supply ................................ 72  4.4.2  Application of the Federal Measure .................................................................................... 73  4.5  Comparison of Alternatives......................................................................................................... 75  4.5.1  Alternative 1: Meet M&I Water Supply Needs through Non-Federal Measures............... 75  4.5.2  Alternative 2: Meet M&I Water Supply Needs through a Combination of NonFederal Measures and Willamette Valley Project Reservoir Storage ...................... 75  4.5.3  Alternative 3: Meet M&I Water Supply Needs through WVP Stored Water .................... 76  4.5.4  Comparison of Alternatives 1 and 3.................................................................................... 77  5  PROPOSED ACTION DEVELOPMENT INTO THE TENTATIVELY SELECTED PLAN .... 78  5.1  Planning Objectives, Constraints and Considerations ................................................................. 78  5.1.1  Planning Objectives ............................................................................................................ 78  5.1.2  Planning Constraints ........................................................................................................... 79  5.1.3  Additional Planning Considerations ................................................................................... 79  5.2  Conservation Storage Reallocation Alternatives ......................................................................... 79  5.2.1  Fish & Wildlife Demand ..................................................................................................... 79  5.2.2  Municipal & Industrial 2070 Peak Season Demand ........................................................... 80  5.2.3  Agricultural Irrigation Peak Demand .................................................................................. 80  5.2.4  Reallocation Alternative A: Proportional Reduction in Storage for all Uses..................... 81  5.2.5  Reallocation Alternative B: Prioritize Fish & Wildlife Storage at Peak Level .................. 81  5.2.6  Reallocation Alternative C: Prioritize M&I and AI Storage at 2070 Peak Season Demand Levels......................................................................................................... 82  5.2.7  Reallocation Alternative D: Reallocation at Reduced Peak Demand Levels with Joint Use Flexibility ................................................................................................. 82  5.2.8  Summary and Screening of Reallocation Alternatives ....................................................... 83  5.3  Alternative Water Management Plans ......................................................................................... 86  5.4  Tentatively Selected Plan ............................................................................................................ 87  5.4.1  TSP Conservation Storage Allocations ............................................................................... 87  5.4.2  TSP Adaptive Management Plan ........................................................................................ 87  6  ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .................................................................................... 90  6.1  Determining Significance – Consideration of Context and Intensity .......................................... 90  6.2  Scope of Environmental Effects Analysis ................................................................................... 91  6.3  Assumptions Regarding the Effects Analyses............................................................................. 91  6.3.1  No change in Flood Risk Management Operations ............................................................ 92  6.3.2  No Modifications to Dams to Increase Storage in WVP Reservoirs .................................. 92  6.3.3  No New Water Supply Intakes on Corps Property ............................................................. 92  Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page xvii Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 6.3.4  No Reasonably Foreseeable Infrastructure Construction by Water Users .......................... 93  6.3.5  Resources Considered but Not Carried Forward for Analysis ............................................ 94  6.4  Climate and Climate Change....................................................................................................... 96  6.4.1  No Action Alternative ......................................................................................................... 97  6.4.2  Tentatively Selected Plan .................................................................................................... 97  6.5  Water Quality .............................................................................................................................. 97  6.5.1  Evaluation of Tributary Water Temperature Differences: No Action Alternative and TSP .................................................................................................................... 97  6.5.2  Evaluation of Mainstem Willamette River Water Temperature Differences: No Action Alternative and TSP ..................................................................................... 98  6.5.3  No Action Alternative ......................................................................................................... 98  6.5.4  Tentatively Selected Plan .................................................................................................... 99  6.6  ESA-Listed Fish Impacts .......................................................................................................... 101  6.6.2  No Action Alternative ....................................................................................................... 105  6.6.3  Tentatively Selected Plan .................................................................................................. 106  6.7  Effects on Authorized Purposes ................................................................................................ 107  6.7.1  Flood Risk Management ................................................................................................... 107  6.7.2  Hydropower Production .................................................................................................... 107  6.7.3  Agricultural Irrigation Water Supply ................................................................................ 108  6.7.4  Municipal & Industrial Water Supply ............................................................................... 108  6.7.5  Reservoir and Riverine Recreation ................................................................................... 109  6.7.6  Navigation ......................................................................................................................... 110  6.8  Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................................... 110  6.8.1  7  Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ......................................................... 110  M&I USER COST, FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY, AND YIELD ............................................... 119  7.1  Derivation of M&I User Cost.................................................................................................... 119  7.1.1  Hydropower Revenues Foregone ...................................................................................... 119  7.1.2  Recreation Benefits Foregone ........................................................................................... 119  7.1.3  Updated Cost of Storage ................................................................................................... 120  7.1.4  Identification of M&I User Cost ....................................................................................... 122  7.2  Test of Financial Feasibility ...................................................................................................... 122  7.3  Yield .......................................................................................................................................... 123  8  PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ...................................................................................................... 124  8.1  Division of Implementation Responsibilities ............................................................................ 124  8.1.1  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ......................................................................................... 124  Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page xviii Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 8.1.2  U.S. Bureau of Reclamation ............................................................................................. 125  8.1.3  Oregon Water Resources Department ............................................................................... 125  8.1.4  WVP Stored Water Users ................................................................................................. 125  8.2  Implementation Costs ................................................................................................................ 126  8.3  Views of the Non-Federal Sponsor ........................................................................................... 126  9  PUBLIC COORDINATION ........................................................................................................ 127  9.1  Public Scoping........................................................................................................................... 127  9.2  Study Progress Stakeholder Meeting ........................................................................................ 128  9.3  List of Agencies Consulted ....................................................................................................... 129  9.3.1  Federal Agencies ............................................................................................................... 129  9.3.2  State Agencies ................................................................................................................... 129  9.3.3  Native American Tribes .................................................................................................... 129  10  COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS .......................... 130  11  DISTRICT ENGINEER’S RECOMMENDATION .................................................................... 136  12  REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 137  13  GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................ 143  14  LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................... 146  Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page xix Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study List of Tables Table ES-1 Peak Season Demands for WVP Stored Water M&I and AI Stated at Year 2070 Levels ........................................................................................................................ vi  Table ES-2 Mainstem BiOp Flow Objectives at Salem and Albany (cfs) ........................................... x  Table ES-3 Tributary BiOp Flow Objectives Downstream of WVP Reservoirs (cfs) ........................ xi  Table ES-4: Summary of Modeled BiOp Flow Objective Performance Comparison: No Action/TSP Expected WVP Releases and M&I Permitted Live Flow Diversions ................................................................................................................ xii  Table 2-1 Listing of Historic Properties and National Register Evaluations by WVP Project .......... 38  Table 3-1 Willamette Valley Project Water Year Types.................................................................... 39  Table 3-2 Mainstem BiOp Flow Objectives at Salem and Albany (cfs) ............................................ 40  Table 3-3 Tributary BiOp Flow Objectives Downstream of WVP Reservoirs (cfs) .......................... 40  Table 3-4 Population Size Characteristics of Study Area M&I Water Suppliers............................... 43  Table 3-5 Study Area Population Projections for the Period of Analysis .......................................... 43  Table 3-6 M&I Systems Peak Season Water Demand – Peak GPCD Use Metric ............................. 47  Table 3-7 M&I System Peak Season Supply Deficits ........................................................................ 49  Table 3-8 M&I System Peak Season Single Source Redundancy Needs........................................... 50  Table 3-9 Self-Supplied Industrial Peak Season Supply Deficits ...................................................... 52  Table 3-10 Total M&I Peak Season Demand for WVP Stored Water ............................................... 52  Table 3-11 Projected Agricultural Irrigation Estimates ..................................................................... 60  Table 3-12 Total Agricultural Irrigation Demand for WVP Stored Water ........................................ 61  Table 3-13 F&W Increase in Demand for WVP Stored Water Incorporating Climate Change-Induced Impacts .......................................................................................... 62  Table 3-14 M&I Peak Season Increase in Demand for WVP Stored Water Incorporating Climate Change-Induced Impacts ............................................................................ 63  Table 3-15 AI Peak Season Increase in Demand for WVP Stored Water Incorporating Climate Change-Induced Impacts (growth in irrigated acreage) ............................. 63  Table 3-16 Total Climate Change-Induced Impacts Demands for WVP Stored Water ..................... 63  Table 4-1 Summary of M&I Water Supply Measures Screening Analysis ....................................... 70  Table 4-2 Final Array of Alternatives Studied in Detail .................................................................... 70  Table 4-4 Alternative 1 Cost Summary .............................................................................................. 75  Table 4-5 Alternative 3 Cost Summary .............................................................................................. 76  Table 4-6 Costs Comparison of Alternatives ..................................................................................... 77  Table 5-1 Peak Season Demands for WVP Stored Water M&I and AI Stated at Year 2070 Levels ....................................................................................................................... 80  Table 5-2 Summary of Reallocation Alternatives .............................................................................. 84  Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page xx Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Table 5-3 Expected Frequencies for Meeting Use Category Demands.............................................. 86  Table 6-1: Summary of Modeled BiOp Flow Objective Performance Comparison: No Action/TSP Expected WVP Releases and M&I Permitted Live Flow Diversions .............................................................................................................. 104  Table 7-1 Annual Changes in Hydropower Revenues for the WVP Conservation Season ............. 119  Table 7-2 Changes in Annual Recreation Benefits for the WVP Conservation Season .................. 120  Table 7-3 WVP Updated M&I Cost of Storage Components – Capital Costs ................................. 121  Table 7-4 Costs and Payments for M&I Water Storage Agreement ................................................ 122  Table 7-5 Annual System-Wide User Cost Computation Methods ................................................. 122  Table 7-6 Comparison of Costs and Benefits: Federal and Non-Federal Plans .............................. 123  Table 8-1 Tentatively Selected Plan Implementation Costs............................................................. 126  Table 9-1 Stakeholder Meeting Attendees ....................................................................................... 128  List of Figures Figure ES-1 Willamette River Basin and Reservoir Projects ............................................................... ii  Figure 1-1 Willamette River Basin and Reservoir Projects ................................................................. 3  Figure 2-1 Typical Willamette Basin Project Water Control Diagram and Rule Curve .................... 16  Figure 2-2 ODEQ Water Quality Monitoring Sites in the Willamette River ..................................... 20  Figure 2-3 Boating Access in the Willamette River Valley ............................................................... 35  Figure 2-4 Scenic Waterways in the Willamette River Valley .......................................................... 36  Figure 3-1 Geographic Distribution of Study Area M&I Systems ..................................................... 44  Figure 3-2 Geographic Extent of Existing Water District Distribution.............................................. 45  Figure 3-3 CDL Coverage of Agricultural Crops in the Willamette River Basin .............................. 55  Figure 3-4 WRIS POU Data Coverage in the Willamette River Basin .............................................. 56  Figure 3-5 Geographic Extent of the AI Study Area with CDL Overlay ........................................... 57  Figure 5-1 Graphic Comparison of Reallocation Alternatives A through D ...................................... 85  Figure 6-1 Spatial Distribution of M&I Demand for WVP Stored Water (2050) ............................ 100  Figure 6-2 Spatial Distribution of AI Demand for WVP Stored Water (2050)................................ 116  Figure 6-3 Spatial Distribution of M&I and AI Demand for WVP Stored Water (2050) ................ 117  Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page xxi Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Appendices Appendix A Municipal & Industrial Demand and Supply Analyses Appendix B Agricultural Irrigation Demand Analyses Appendix C Calculation of Water Volumes Required to Meet Willamette BiOp Minimum Flows Appendix D Flow Dataset Used for ResSim Analyses Appendix E ResSim Analysis for 2008 Baseline Flow Dataset Appendix F ResSim WVP and Live Flow Diversions for Base Year 2020, No Action 2050, and Tentatively Selected Plan Model Runs Appendix G ResSim Analysis for Base Year 2020, No Action Alternative 2050, and Tentatively Selected Plan 2050 Appendix H BiOp Flow Objective Performance of the No Action Alternative and Tentatively Selected Plan Appendix I Reservoir-Related Boating Recreation Benefits Impact Analyses Appendix J Hydropower Impacts Analysis Appendix K Discussion of Climate Change Impact on Future Regulation Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page xxii Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 1 Introduction The original plan for the system of dams in the Willamette River basin is described in House Document 544, 75th Congress, 3rd Session from March 16, 1938, as authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1938 (Pub. L. No. 75-761). Through a series of Flood Control Acts (including the 1938, 1950, and 1960 acts, among others) the U.S. Congress authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to construct, operate, and maintain thirteen major dams2 in the Willamette River basin. Collectively, these dams and associated infrastructure are known as the Willamette Valley Project (WVP). The operation of each dam contributes to an overall water resource plan designed to meet the Congressionally-authorized project purposes for the WVP. Although there are multiple authorities pertaining to development of the WVP, House Document (House Doc.) 531 (81st Congress, 2nd Session), authorized by the Flood Control Act of May 17, 1950, remains the primary guiding document pertaining to operation and maintenance of the project (USACE, 2007). It provides the basic authorization for operations of the WVP to meet authorized project purposes. The annual weather patterns and runoff characteristics of the Willamette River basin make the multiple purpose operation of the reservoir system possible. The well-defined limits of the flood season allow the reservoirs to be drawn down in the fall and winter to catch flood flows. The reservoirs are then filled in the spring and held full as long as possible in the summer so that water stored in, or released from, the reservoirs can serve a variety of beneficial uses. Each WVP reservoir is operated based on a water control plan which describes flow objectives, rates of flow changes, and establishes the elevation at which the pool is to be maintained during various seasons and seasonal transitions. With a combined conservation storage capacity of approximately 1,590,000 acre-feet, the WVP is capable of providing important benefits for flood damage reduction, navigation, hydropower, irrigation, municipal and industrial water supply, flow augmentation for pollution abatement and improved conditions for fish and wildlife, and recreation. Of the 1,590,000 acre-feet of WVP conservation storage, approximately 75,000 acre-feet of stored water is currently contracted through the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) for irrigation. Annual visitation to the reservoirs includes an estimated 3.6 million recreation visits to Corpsmanaged areas, in addition to an estimated 700,000 visits to areas managed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the state of Oregon (including Detroit Lake State Recreation Area), and local counties (USACE, 2000). The Portland District of the Corps operates the system of 13 reservoirs as the WVP. Importantly, the entire WVP conservation storage remains as originally allocated to Joint Use with no distinct allocations for specific project purposes. The WVP represents a combination of large economic investments and commitments of valuable natural resources, and can make important 2 Fall Creek Dam on Fall Creek; Fern Ridge Dam on the Long Tom River; Cottage Grove Dam on the Coast Fork Willamette River; Dorena Dam on the Row River; Big Cliff and Detroit Dams on the North Fork Santiam River; Green Peter on the Middle Santiam River, Foster Dam on the South Fork Santiam River; Blue River Dam on the Blue River, Cougar Dam on the McKenzie River; and Dexter, Hills Creek, and Lookout Point Dams on the Middle Fork Willamette River. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 1 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study contributions to the nation’s economy (USACE, 1998). Over time, as population shifts and growth and need changes, the purposes of some WVP reservoirs may no longer satisfy the original project priorities to meet these changing needs. The Corps is evaluating a reallocation of WVP conservation storage to address these changes (USACE, 1998). The Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study began in 1996 to investigate future water demand in the basin with respect to the operation of the WVP during the conservation storage and flow release season. Because of the state of Oregon’s jurisdiction over water storage and use, the non-federal sponsor for the feasibility study was the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD). The feasibility study was put on hold in 2000 pending resolution Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation (detailed below). The feasibility study is now moving forward with the goal of reallocating WVP conservation storage for fish and wildlife (F&W) benefits, agricultural irrigation (AI), and municipal and industrial (M&I) water supply over a 50-year period of analysis, while continuing to fulfill the other project purposes. The feasibility study will result in a Chief of Engineer’s approval report verifying project recommendations. In addition, this report is an Integrated Feasibility Report/Environmental Assessment (FR/EA) to document the results of the feasibility study and comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 1.1 Authority The House Committee on Public Works resolution for the Willamette Basin Review Study, adopted September 8, 1988, Exhibit 1, authorized the Chief of Engineers to determine: “...whether modifications to the existing projects are warranted and determine the need for further improvements with the Willamette River Basin (the Basin) in the interest of water resources improvements” 1.2 SMART Planning Framework The current Willamette River Basin Review Feasibility Study is being conducted under planning modernization initiatives as laid out in the specific, measurable, attainable, risk informed, and timely (SMART) planning. Under these initiatives, the study will be completed within three years of initiation, will cost less than $3 million (federal and non-federal costs combined), and will be coordinated early and often through the Corps vertical team. 1.3 Project Area With a watershed of more than 11,200 square miles, the Willamette River basin is located entirely within the state of Oregon, beginning south of Cottage Grove and extending approximately 187 miles to the north where it flows into the Columbia River (see Figure 1-1). The Willamette River is the 13th largest river in the conterminous U.S. in terms of streamflow and produces more runoff per unit area than any of the 12 larger rivers (USEPA, 2013). The basin averages 75 miles in width, and encompasses approximately 12 percent of the total area of the state. The basin is bound by three mountain ranges: the Cascade Range to the east, the Coast Range to the west, and the Calapooya Mountains to the south. Maximum elevations exceed 10,000 feet in the Cascade Range, 4,000 feet in the Coast Range, and 6,000 feet in the Calapooya Mountains. In the upper reaches, Willamette River tributaries flow in narrow valleys with steep gradients. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 2 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Figure 1-1 Willamette River Basin and Reservoir Projects Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 3 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Major Cascade Range tributaries include the Santiam, McKenzie, Middle Fork of the Willamette, Molalla, and Clackamas rivers. The Willamette River is also fed by major tributaries from the Coast Range, including the Long Tom, Marys, Luckiamute, Yamhill, and Tualatin rivers. At the south end of the basin, the Coast Fork of the Willamette River emerges from the Calapooya Mountains and joins the mainstem Willamette River near the City of Springfield. Annual precipitation in the Willamette River basin ranges from 40 to 200 inches depending on location. The average annual flow at Salem (river mile 84, drainage area of 7,280 square miles) for the water years 1910-2015 was 23,300 cubic feet per second (cfs) or about 16.9 million acre-feet per year (USACE, 2017). Forested land covers approximately 70 percent of the watershed and dominates the foothills and mountains of the Coast and Cascade Ranges (USEPA, 2013). Agricultural land (mostly cropland) comprises approximately 22 percent of the basin and is located predominantly in the Willamette Valley (USEPA, 2013). About one-third of the agricultural land is irrigated, and most of this irrigated agricultural land is adjacent to the main stem Willamette River in the southern portion of the basin or scattered throughout the northern valley. Urban land comprises approximately six percent of the basin and is located primarily in the valley along the mainstem Willamette River (USEPA, 2013). Within the watershed are most of the state’s population, larger cities, and major industries. The basin also contains some of Oregon’s most productive agricultural lands and supports nationally and regionally important fish and wildlife species. Thirteen of Oregon’s thirty-six counties intersect or lie within the boundary of the Willamette River basin and nearly seventy percent of Oregon’s population lives within the basin. 1.4 Role of Endangered Species Act Consultation on the Willamette Basin Review Study The WVP was authorized by the U.S. Congress with the full recognition3 that constructing and operating the system of reservoirs would cut off extensive areas of upstream habitat for migratory salmon and steelhead (USACE, 2007). To compensate for this loss of fish habitat, a series of fish hatcheries were authorized; some new and some in replacement of state hatcheries that would be destroyed by the dams and reservoirs. In addition, House Doc. 531 contained continuing authority for the Corps to construct fish passage facilities at several of the WVP dams, and language from Congress encouraging the Corps to try to solve the problem of fish passage over the high-head dams to be constructed in the Willamette River basin.4 In 1993, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed the Oregon chub5 as endangered under the ESA. In 1999, the bull trout was also listed as threatened; both species are found in the Willamette River basin. In 1999, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s 3 House Doc. 531, Appendix J, Willamette River Basin, p. 1732-1734, paragraphs 181-185, especially 181. 4 House Doc. 531, Appendix J, Willamette River Basin; p. 1746-1747, para. 236; p. 1765, para. 305 (Cougar Dam); para. 384 (White Bridge Dam later moved to Foster under the 1960 Rivers and Harbors Act; para. 411 (hatchery summary); and para. 532 (continue efforts at fish passage). 5 The Oregon chub has since been de-listed. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 4 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) listed both the Upper Willamette River (UWR) spring Chinook salmon and the UWR winter-run steelhead as threatened species. The ongoing effects on these ESA-listed fish from the continued operation of the WVP were the subject of formal Section 7 consultation under the ESA. In accordance with the Section 7 consultation process, the Portland District submitted a Biological Assessment (BA) to the NMFS and USFWS (i.e., “the Services”) to assess the ongoing operation and maintenance of the WVP (USACE, 2000). Because of their coordinated decision-making relative to WVP operation, the BA also identified Reclamation and Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) as Action Agencies. The BA evaluated the likely effects of the continued operation of the WVP on species and their critical habitat as listed under the ESA.6 In January 2006, the Corps notified the Services of the Action Agencies’ decision to prepare a revision to the proposed action and a supplement to the 2000 BA (USACE, 2000), and submitted the Supplemental BA in May 2007 (USACE, 2007). In addition to hatchery operations,7 the Supplemental BA included a revised proposed action that would more accurately reflect thencurrent WVP operations, particularly mainstem and tributary flow modifications implemented after preparation of the 2000 BA. Importantly, the Supplemental BA identified new measures that the Action Agencies have the authority to implement, which include:  Changes to WVP reservoir management implemented subsequent to the 2000 BA, including mainstem and tributary minimum flow objectives;  Completion of the selective withdrawal tower at Cougar Dam and actions underway to address fish passage and related issues at Cougar and Blue River dams under the Willamette Temperature Control Project;  Strategies for reform of fish hatchery operations and associated mitigation;  Habitat restoration actions undertaken on project lands through natural resources stewardship responsibilities, as well as offsite under the Corps General Investigation Program and Continuing Authorities Program;  Evaluation of the potential feasibility and effectiveness of proposed major structural modifications at WVP dams to address ESA issues, including improved fish passage and handling, temperature control and hatchery facilities at WVP dams other than Blue River and Cougar; 6 The proposed action contained in the 2000 BA was based on operation of the WVP prior to the ESA-listing of UWR spring Chinook salmon and winter-run steelhead in 1999. 7 A key element of the revised proposed action was integrating hatchery operations and recommendations for hatchery reform associated with development of Hatchery Genetic Management Plans (HGMPs) in coordination with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). The ESA coverage for Willamette Basin hatcheries operated by ODFW as mitigation for impacts of the WVP was previously covered under a 2001 NMFS BiOp, which lapsed in 2004. The action agencies agreed that since hatchery operations and management of hatchery fish was closely related to project operations, rather than addressing them as separate consultations they should be integrated into the same proposed action. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 5 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study  Strategies for integrating operational, structural, habitat, and hatchery measures across the basin that enhance their effectiveness and take advantage of synergies that may exist; and  Update and accurately describe the ongoing research, monitoring, and evaluation (RM&E) program in the Willamette River basin and develop a comprehensive RM&E plan that better meets ESA requirements. The Services provided the Action Agencies with their final Biological Opinions (BiOps) in July 2008 (NMFS, 2008; USFWS, 2008), addressing the effects of WVP operation and maintenance on the respective ESA-listed fish for which they were responsible. These BiOps specify actions to ensure that the continued operation of the WVP dams, reservoirs, hatcheries, and 42 miles of riverbank protection projects would not reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the ESA-listed fish. NMFS BiOp concluded the proposed action described in the BA jeopardized the ESA-listed Upper Willamette Chinook and winter-run steelhead, and included a “reasonable and prudent alternative” (RPA). The USFWS BiOp (USFWS, 2008) concluded the proposed action did not jeopardize the ESA-listed bull trout. Implementing the reasonable and prudent measures would minimize possible adverse effects on listed species and their critical habitat and require monitoring and reporting to ensure compliance. 1.4.1 Early Implementation of Flow-Related RPA Measure It was anticipated that the recommendations in the BiOp would include the use of stored water to meet flow objectives for the Willamette River mainstem and its major tributaries. Since water year 2000, the Corps has adopted and implemented mainstem Willamette River flow objectives8 at Salem based on recommendations from NMFS and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) (USACE, 2007). In addition, tributary-specific flow, important to local populations of ESA-listed fish, have been closely monitored and adjusted when necessary (USACE, 2007). During informal consultation, NMFS recommended continuation of the spring and early summer mainstem minimum flows needed to support salmon and steelhead migration (USACE, 2007). The Corps has continued to operate the WVP in an attempt to meet tributary flow objectives since 2000. From 2000 through 2003, the Corps worked with other federal and state agencies to develop a WVP flow management strategy. This strategy established a continuing framework for meeting flow objectives, that relies on monthly meetings and regular coordination teleconferences to provide updates on reservoir and flow conditions in the Willamette River and its tributaries. Implementation of the flow management strategy has resulted in the WVP being operated to meet flow objectives9 for more than 15 years. 1.5 Purpose and Need for Corps Action The purpose for Corps action is to reallocate the 1,590,000 acre-feet of WVP conservation storage from Joint Use to specific uses to fulfill the multi-purpose goals of the WVP. 8 Flow objectives were based on the relationship between flow and temperature during the juvenile winter-run steelhead out-migration and subsequent adult returns. 9 Minimum mainstem flows and minimum tributary flows. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 6 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study This FR/EA identifies three different needs that could utilize WVP stored water, and require specific allocations of WVP conservation storage to meet those needs. 4. Among the issues addressed in the RPA, the Action Agencies must coordinate with OWRD to facilitate conversion of a portion of WVP conservation storage to instream water rights (RPA 2.9). Although the Corps releases WVP stored water to support ESAlisted fish tributary reaches, the Corps cannot guarantee that these flows would be maintained throughout the reach because OWRD, not the Corps, has enforcement authority over water rights. While the Corps has been operating the WVP to meet flow objectives since the year 2000, releases of WVP stored water are not protected instream due to restrictions with state water law. Reallocating a portion of WVP conservation storage specifically for F&W benefits would facilitate the legal protection of WVPreleased water for instream purposes, as described in RPA 2.9. 5. Of the 1,590,000 acre-feet of WVP conservation storage, approximately 75,000 acre-feet is currently under contract through Reclamation for irrigation. Reclamation may enter into irrigation contracts up to 95,000 acre-feet per year without the need to consult with the NMFS as established under the 2008 BiOp (NMFS, 2008). WVP conservation storage in excess of 95,000 acre-feet per year would be needed to meet future demand for AI water supply. Although a specific allocation to AI is not necessary for Reclamation to continue to issue water supply contracts in excess of 95,000 acre-feet, a specific allocation must be included in order to efficiently balance the reallocation of WVP conservation storage. 6. The state of Oregon has long identified the WVP as a potential source for future municipal and industrial (M&I) water supply needs in the basin. Although an authorized project purpose, no portion of WVP conservation storage was ever specifically allocated to M&I water supply. In order comply with Corps water supply policy, the Corps must identify a portion of WVP conservation storage that could be allocated to M&I water supply. Without a specific quantity of WVP conservation storage allocated to M&I, water supply storage agreements for M&I uses of WVP stored water cannot be executed. 1.6 Federal Interest There is a federal interest in determining an efficient reallocation of WVP conservation storage, as it would help to fulfill the intent of language included House Doc. 531, Volume 5. Paragraph 198 (“Ample storage in individual reservoirs, therefore, would be available at relatively low cost for domestic use when current facilities can no longer meet the demand.”). Determining appropriate allocations of WVP conservation storage among the three water use categories would result in a balanced use of the resource and provide revenue to the Federal Treasury. Additionally, once a portion of WVP conservation storage is allocated for F&W benefits, the Corps would have facilitated “conversion of stored water to an instream flow water right”, as directed by the NMFS’ 2008 BiOp (RPA 2.9). 1.7 Non-Federal Sponsor The state of Oregon, Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) is the non-federal sponsor for this study. OWRD is the regulatory agency responsible for directly addressing Oregon’s water supply needs, including the restoration and protection of streamflows across the state. OWRD administers water rights, water management, water policy, and water supply planning for Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 7 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study the state of Oregon. The Feasibility Cost Share Agreement (FCSA) was signed by the Corps and OWRD in August 2015. 1.8 Lead Agency and Cooperating Agency Designations For every federal action subject to the requirements of NEPA, at least one federal agency must serve as the lead agency, which has the primary responsibility for decision-making and compliance with NEPA on a given proposed action. The Corps is the lead agency for this proposed action. If more than one federal agency is involved in a proposed action, the lead agency is determined by considering the:      Magnitude of the federal agency’s involvement, Approval authority over the proposed action, Expertise with regard to environmental effects, Duration of the federal agency’s involvement, and Sequence of the federal agency’s involvement (40 C.F.R. § 1501.5(c)). When a federal agency other than the lead agency has discretionary authority over a proposed action (e.g., Reclamation with respect to irrigation contracts) or special expertise with respect to the environmental impact involved in the proposal (e.g., NMFS’s expertise with respect to the ESA), they may be requested to participate as a Cooperating Agency (40 C.F.R. § 1508.5; Forty Questions No. 14(a, b, c)). Agencies invited to participate in the feasibility study as cooperating agencies were the USFWS, Reclamation, and BLM; the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA); the USFS; and NMFS. 1.8.1 Bonneville Power Administration BPA is responsible for managing, transmitting, and selling electrical power generated by WVP hydroelectric facilities, and is one of the three Action Agencies in the 2008 BiOps (along with the Corps and Reclamation). The Corps requested that BPA participate in the feasibility study as a cooperating agency (USACE, 2016), but the BPA declined participation because “we [BPA] determined that allocation scenarios likely to be reviewed between all the required uses are unlikely to disrupt the output curve needed for continued power generation; therefore BPA has no decisionmaking responsibilities related to this proposal” (USDOE, 2016). 1.8.2 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Reclamation administers the water marketing program whereby landowners and/or institutions contract for a portion of WVP conservation storage for the purpose of irrigation. In administering the water marketing program, Reclamation considers entering into water service contracts discretionary agency decisions subject to review under the requirements of NEPA (USBOR, 2012); Reclamation also receives payments for the contracted water on behalf of the U.S. Government. The Corps requested that Reclamation participate in the feasibility study as a cooperating agency (USACE, 2016a) and Reclamation declined because they separately fulfill their NEPA obligations on each water service contract they issue, and do not require decisions from this feasibility study to continue their water service contracting actions. Nevertheless, Reclamation has provided ongoing coordination throughout the feasibility study. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 8 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 1.8.3 National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NMFS and USFWS were invited to be cooperating agencies in the feasibility study because of their agencies’ expertise with respect to species listed under the ESA (USACE, 2016b; USACE, 2016c). The USFWS accepted the invitation (USFWS, 2016); NMFS did not formally respond to the request. Although not responding to the request to be a cooperating agency, NMFS has been included in an interdisciplinary team engaged in reviewing and analyzing existing data regarding instream flow needs to support ESA-listed fish. 1.8.4 Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service BLM and USFS (Willamette National Forest and Umpqua National Forest) were invited to be cooperating agencies because of their management of federal lands adjacent or in proximity to WVP reservoirs (USACE, 2016d; USACE, 2016e; USACE, 2016f). On behalf of the USFS, the Forest Supervisor of the Willamette National Forest accepted participation in the feasibility study as a cooperating agency (USDA, 2016), but then later determined that their participation as a cooperating agency was not warranted. No formal response to the request was received by the Corps from representatives of the BLM or the Umpqua National Forest. 1.9 Other Agency Decisions Required The Corps does not have unilateral authority to implement all actions that would be necessary to achieve all of the study goals – discretionary actions must be taken by Reclamation, OWRD, and ODFW. Should these agencies fail to implement the actions described below, the Corps decision to reallocate WVP conservation storage would be rendered ineffective in meeting the needs identified in Section 1.5. 1.9.1 Reclamation to Request Change to WVP Water Storage Rights Certificates In the state of Oregon, water law distinguishes between diverting water for storage, and releasing water from storage for use; each requires a different water right. In Oregon, the right to store water conveys ownership of the stored water. Because policy prohibits the Corps from holding state water rights,10 Reclamation filed two water storage right applications on behalf of the federal government for the entire WVP conservation pool (1,640,100 acre-feet11). OWRD approved these two applications and issued water right certificates. However, the rights that allow Reclamation to store water in WVP reservoirs are designated exclusively for irrigation. Given this limitation, a secondary water right to use WVP stored water cannot be granted to other potential water use categories (e.g., M&I, F&W). In order for non-irrigation use categories (e.g., M&I, F&W) to realize benefits from the reallocation of WVP conservation storage, Reclamation’s two storage rights need to undergo a transfer review process 10 ER 1105-2-100, USACE Planning Guidance Notebook, Section 3-8 b(1), Water Supply, Specific Policies, states that “The Corps will not acquire water rights necessary for use of stored water.” 11 Project conservation storage values stated in the certificates were rounded upward, which results in a sum of 1,640,100 acre-feet on the certificates. The actual volume of WVP conservation storage is just over 1,590,000 acrefeet, which is the system-wide conservation storage volume figure used throughout this report. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 9 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study to change the character of use to match the proposed reallocation of WVP conservation storage.12 Reclamation’s Columbia-Cascades Area Office Deputy Area Manager indicated the agency would be willing to change the purpose of use on the two storage certificates (USBOR, 2017). If Reclamation does not file a transfer application for a change in character of use, OWRD cannot approve secondary water rights for the use of WVP stored water for either F&W or M&I. 1.9.2 OWRD to Issue Change in Stored Water Character of Use After Reclamation requests that OWRD issue a change in character of use for its two water storage rights, OWRD must review the transfer application. The review includes a determination of whether or not the proposed change in character of use would injure other water rights. In addition, the transfer must undergo a public review process where protests could be filed, potentially challenging an approval determination. OWRD may condition the approval order to eliminate potential injury to other water rights. If conditions would not eliminate injury, the application would be denied. Ideally, each of the considerations OWRD needs to make in order to issue the change in character of use for the two water storage rights would be accomplished through the review process of this FR/EA. 1.9.3 ODFW to Request Conversion of Instream Water Rights for Fish and Wildlife Once OWRD has approved the change in character of use for Reclamation’s storage rights, ODFW could request that OWRD issue secondary instream water rights for the purpose of protecting the instream flows from illegal diversion below WVP reservoirs. The NMFS 2008 BiOp RPA 2.9 (Protecting Stored Water Released for Fish) states that “In coordination with the OWRD and ODFW, the Action Agencies will facilitate conversion of stored water to an instream flow water right.” Although the actions necessary to protect releases of WVP stored water for instream purposes are not within the purview of the Corps, this FR/EA will serve to facilitate the actions by the other agencies that are necessary to establish water rights for instream purposes. 1.9.4 OWRD to Issue Secondary Water Rights for Use of Stored Water In order to utilize WVP stored water, entities must request, and be issued secondary water rights by OWRD. Each of the preceding actions by Reclamation and OWRD must occur before secondary water rights could be issued. 1.10 Government to Government / Tribal Coordination Early in the study, the Corps sent formal requests to initiate government-to-government consultation with the following Tribal entities:  The Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians (USACE, 2015);  The Cowlitz Indian Tribe (USACE, 2015a); 12 The Willamette Valley Project, as listed in House Doc. 531, page 246, paragraph 527, was authorized for the primary purpose of controlling floods and as a solution to major drainage problems. Secondarily, after the flood season, stored water in the conservation pool was intended to be released for navigation, generation of hydroelectric power, irrigation, water supply, and reduction of stream pollution for health, fish conservation, and public recreation. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 10 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study  The Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon (USACE, 2015b);  The Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians (USACE, 2015c); and  The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon (USACE, 2015d). No formal responses to the coordination letters were provided by any of the Tribal entities. Tribes were notified of and invited to attend public scoping meetings in March 2016 as well as stakeholder meetings in March 2017. 1.11 Relevant Documents and Reports Willamette Basin Comprehensive Study (Willamette Basin Task Force, 1969) The purpose of the Willamette Basin Comprehensive Study was to develop information on future water and related resource needs and to prepare a plan for meeting those needs. The study was directed and coordinated by the Willamette Basin Task Force, which included the state of Oregon and several federal agencies (Corps; Bureau of Reclamation; Department of Agriculture; Department of Commerce; Federal Power Commission; Department of Labor; and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare). Final Environmental Impact Statement, Operations and Maintenance of the Willamette Reservoir System (USACE, 1980) This FEIS was prepared to examine the environmental effects of continued operation and maintenance of the WVP. The FEIS analyzed the environmental effects of operating the WVP’s system of reservoirs to fulfill all of the different project purposes. Willamette Basin Reservation Request for Future Agricultural Economic Development (Oregon Department of Agriculture, 1994) The Oregon Department of Agriculture submitted an application requesting for a reservation of water for future economic development by irrigation and related agricultural uses in February 1990. The request was submitted to OWRD, amended in December 1994, and requested 550,000 acre-feet of existing storage from the federal reservoirs, 225,000 acre-feet of new storage deemed feasible, and 1,127 cubic feet per second of early season natural flow, mostly from the Santiam River basin. Willamette Basin Reservation Request – Surface Water for Future Municipal Use (League of Oregon Cities and Special Districts Assoc of Oregon, 1994) This document is an application for a Willamette River basin municipal water reservation, which was a state process for any state agency to reserve unappropriated water for future economic development. The application was prepared by the League of Oregon Cities and Special Districts association of Oregon on behalf of municipal water suppliers in the Willamette River basin. The application requested a reservation of 287,217 acre-feet of water for municipal and industrial needs through the year 2050. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 11 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Willamette River Temperature Control, McKenzie Subbasin, Oregon. Final Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement (USACE, 1995) The study evaluated the potential for modifying the Cougar and Blue River projects for water temperature control because the two dams altered downstream water temperatures which were cooler in the late spring/summer and warmer in the late fall/winter than pre-dam conditions. The study investigated alternatives to modify the temperature of downstream releases to replicate predam water temperatures to benefit anadromous and native fish species. Selective withdrawal was preferred because of its proven reliability, durability, and operational flexibility for both cooling and warming release temperatures. The Water Resources Development Act of 1996 authorized the installation of the water temperature control tower at Cougar Dam, and was reauthorized in the Water Resources Act of 1999. Willamette Basin Reservoir Study Interim Report (USACE, 2000) The Interim Report documented the progress made under the Willamette Basin Reservoir Feasibility since its initiation in 1996. The purpose of the feasibility study was to analyze current water uses in the basin, to project water needs for the variety of uses, and to identify reservoir water reallocation options to assure the most public benefit within the policies and regulations of the Corps. The report provides estimates for AI and M&I demand for WVP stored water. In March 1999, winter-run steelhead and UWR spring Chinook salmon in the upper Willamette basin were listed as threatened species under the ESA. In April 1999, the study was suspended pending the formal consultation between the Corps, NMFS, and USFWS as required under Section 7 of the ESA. Biological Assessment of the Effects of the Willamette River Basin Flood Control Project on Species Listed Under the Endangered Species Act (USACE, 2000) In April 2000, the Corps submitted a BA to NMFS and USFWS to assess the ongoing operation and maintenance of the WVP in accordance with Section 7 of the ESA (USACE, 2000). The BA evaluated the likely effects of the continued operation of the WVP on species and their critical habitat as listed under the ESA.13 In addition to the Corps, the BA included Reclamation and BPA as action agencies. Supplemental Biological Assessment of the Effects of the Willamette River Basin Flood Control Project on Species Listed Under the Endangered Species Act (USACE, 2007) This document supplements the April 2000 BA of the Effects of the Willamette River Basin Flood Control Project on Species Listed under the ESA (USACE 2000). A key element of the Supplemental BA included the integration of hatchery operations and recommendations for hatchery reform associated with development of Hatchery Genetic Management Plans. In addition, the Supplemental BA identified new measures to address changes to reservoir management; completion of selective withdrawal towers; fish passage facilities; habitat restoration; and the integration of operational, structural, habitat, and hatchery measures across the basin to enhance their effectiveness. The Supplemental BA also updated ongoing research, 13 The proposed action contained in the 2000 BA was based on operation of the WVP prior to the ESA-listing of UWR spring Chinook salmon and winter-run steelhead in 1999. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 12 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study monitoring, and evaluation programs in the basin geared to developing a comprehensive plan for meeting ESA requirements. Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Consultation Biological Opinion & MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation on the Willamette River Basin Flood Control Project (NMFS, 2008) and Biological Opinion On the Continued Operation and Maintenance of the Willamette River Basin Project and Effects to Oregon Chub, Bull Trout, and Bull Trout Critical Habitat Designated Under the Endangered Species Act (USFWS, 2008) NMFS and USFWS completed final separate, but coordinated, BiOps in 2008 addressing the effects of the operation and maintenance of the WVP on the respective ESA-listed fish for which each agency is responsible. These BiOps specify actions to ensure that the continued operation of the Willamette Valley dams, reservoirs, hatcheries and 42 miles of the riverbank protection projects would not reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the ESA-listed fish. The BiOps include a RPA and reasonable and prudent measures to minimize possible adverse effects on ESA-listed fish and their critical habitat. They also require monitoring and reporting to ensure compliance with requirements. The BiOps require actions that provide upstream and downstream fish passage, temperature improvements downstream of dams, improvements in downstream flows, screening of irrigation diversions, and restoring habitat and improving hatchery practices and facilities. The BiOps also specify timeframes for each action and include measures for coordination and research. Willamette Valley Projects Configuration/Operation Plan (USACE, 2009) The RPA in the 2008 NMFS BiOp required the Corps to evaluate a variety of potential actions intended to benefit ESA-listed fish to avoid jeopardy and to define biological criteria as a part of the Configuration/Operation Process (COP). The 2009 COP was a multi-year, multi-level, study that evaluated a range of potentially beneficial actions and provided the detailed analyses needed to implement the actions. The Corps adopted the COP process to examine measures related to the operation and maintenance of the projects that had the potential to reduce Willamette Project operations effects on ESA-listed fish. Oregon’s Integrated Water Resources Strategy (OWRD, 2012) The fundamental purpose of this document was to understand Oregon’s water needs and to articulate a strategy to meet those needs into the future. OWRD took the lead to develop this document, and worked closely with ODEQ, ODFW, and the Oregon Department of Agriculture. Recommended Action 10.B in the 2012 Integrated Water Resources Strategy, Improve Access to Built Storage, included implementation actions to “Reallocate water in federal reservoir systems that have not undertaken formal allocation processes in Oregon” and “Authorize and fund the State to invest in and purchase water from stored water facilities.” Coast Fork Willamette River, Oregon, Surplus Water Letter Report (USACE, 2014) The purpose of the study documented in this report was to identify whether 437 acre-feet of water stored in the WVP Cottage Grove and Dorena reservoirs could be available as surplus for the City of Creswell’s M&I use. OWRD acted as the non-federal cost-share sponsor for the study. Based on the findings of the report, it was recommended that Creswell be issued a surplus Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 13 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study water agreement for 437 acre-feet of surplus water from Dorena and Cottage Grove Reservoirs, combined. The report includes steps required for implementation. Willamette Valley Projects Configuration/Operation Plan, Phase II Report (USACE, 2015) The Configuration/Operation Plan (COP) Phase II Report presented specific implementation plans to NOAA Fisheries based on the COP; based on their review, NOAA would determine whether the actions proposed were likely to have the biological results that NOAA relied on in their 2008 BiOp to avoid jeopardy. The RPA outlined actions to be implemented to avoid jeopardy to ESA-listed fish to from continued operations and maintenance of the Willamette Project. The actions identified for implementation included construction of a selective withdrawal structure and three downstream fish passage improvement structures to provide effective fish passage to above-dam habitat for three populations of UWR Chinook and two populations of UWR winter-run steelhead. 2015 Statewide Long-Term Water Demand Forecast (OWRD, 2015) This report, prepared by OWRD, provides key findings and estimates of total diversion demands, and advice on how to apply data from the report to place-based integrated water resources planning efforts. Individual chapters of the report and appendices are dedicated to agricultural water demand forecasts, and municipal, domestic, and industrial water demand forecasts. Findings are presented at the state, county, and major watershed level. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 14 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 2 Existing Conditions / Affected Environment NEPA reviews should coordinate and take appropriate advantage of existing documents and studies, including through adoption and incorporation by reference14 (CEQ, 2012). Agencies are encouraged to concentrate on relevant environmental analysis in their documents and not to produce an encyclopedia of applicable information. Impacts should be discussed in proportion to their significance, and if the impacts are not deemed significant there should be only enough discussion to show why more study is not warranted; clearly insignificant issues should be discussed briefly. Scoping, incorporation-by-reference, and integration of other environmental analyses are additional methods that may be used to avoid redundant or repetitive discussion of issues (CEQ, 2012). Many documents have assessed the affected environment of the study area, including a large number of Corps planning documents that address actions in the Willamette River basin. Within these documents, the existing environmental, socioeconomic, and historical characteristics (i.e., the affected environment) have been described in detail. As a result, there exists an extensive multidisciplinary body of literature that is available and routinely supplemented, the most relevant of which are listed below.  Two EISs (USACE, 1980; USACE, 1995) and 14 resource use planning documents have been prepared by the Corps (USACE, 1955; 1963; 1974; 1974a; 1976; 1987; 1987a; 1988; 1989; 1989a, 1992; 1994; 2000a; and 2010) on various project elements of the WVP.  The Corps published a BA (USACE, 2000) and Supplemental BA (USACE, 2007) that examined the effects of the WVP on species listed under the ESA.  The USFWS and NMFS published BiOps on the continued operation and maintenance of the WVP (USFWS, 2008; NMFS, 2008) in response to the Corps Supplemental BA.  The Portland District published an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) examining the availability of surplus water on the Coast Fork of the Willamette (USACE, 2014)  The Portland District published a two-phased Configuration/Operating Plan (COP) for all of the WVP (USACE, 2009; USACE, 2015f). The COP, Phase II Report from 2015 provides recommendations to address the major substantive measures in the RPA from the NMFS 2008 BiOp and is being used to document the long-term plan for implementing the RPA. Collectively, these documents comprehensively characterize the affected environment of the WVP reservoirs and surrounding areas, and are incorporated by reference. 14 “Agencies shall incorporate material into an EIS by reference when the effect will be to cut down on bulk without impeding agency and public review of the action. As such, the incorporated material shall be cited in the statement and its content briefly described” (40 C.F.R. § 1502.21). The documents incorporated by reference within this draft FR/EA have a hypertext link included in the reference and are accessible on line. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 15 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 2.1 Willamette Valley Project and System Operational Overview WVP dams and reservoirs are located on five major tributaries to the Willamette River, regulating about 27 percent of the drainage area of the Willamette River basin upstream of Portland. Each year has three reservoir control periods: flood risk management (fall/winter), conservation storage (spring), and conservation holding and release (summer), with the dates of these seasons varying slightly for each reservoir (USACE, 2014). Operation of each project is guided by a water control diagram, including the rule curve, which establishes the elevation at which the pool is to be maintained at or below during various seasons and during seasonal transitions unless regulating a flood event. Figure 2-1 depicts a typical WVP water control diagram, including the rule curve. As shown in Figure 2-1, from September to November (or December, depending on the project), the reservoirs are drawn down to minimum flood pool elevations in order to reserve space to detain and release winter flood flows as necessary. In February (depending on the project), reservoirs begin to accumulate water in conservation storage (i.e., fill, by releasing less water than flows in), and by about the end of May or June, WVP reservoirs are as full as possible for the summer season (USACE, 2015f). Figure 2-1 Typical Willamette Basin Project Water Control Diagram and Rule Curve Because the water in each reservoir’s conservation pool is emptied each fall in preparation for the flood season, the volume of water available to refill the conservation pool each spring is strictly a function of water flow into the reservoirs during that given spring. For the entire basin, the annual precipitation total is about 63 inches based on rain gage and snow depth data with 60percent falling during November through March (USACE, 2015f). Average annual runoff is approximately 16 million acre-feet per year as measured at Salem; however, the extremes of annual inflows range from a minimum of approximately nine million acre-feet (recorded in 1944) to a maximum of approximately 28 million acre-feet (recorded in 1996) as measured at Salem. WVP stored water available for meeting project purposes in any Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 16 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study given year is dependent upon the forecasted, usable, system-wide stored water accumulated by mid-May (USACE, 2015f). Over the period of record, the average WVP stored water available in any given year is approximately 1,340,000 acre-feet, the maximum is 1,590,000 acre-feet, the median is 1,510,000 acre-feet, and the minimum is 340,000 acre-feet. 2.1.1 Flow Management Coordination As required by Congress, the Corps manages the WVP to meet multiple responsibilities, including flood risk management, power production, pollution abatement, recreation, irrigation, navigation, and fish and wildlife benefits. In making operational decisions to meet the requirements of the ESA, the Corps takes appropriate actions within their authority to avoid jeopardy to ESA-listed fish. In some years, inflow into WVP reservoirs would not be sufficient to completely meet all of the traditional Corps responsibilities as well as the ESA responsibilities for the WVP. The Corps annually prepares an operating plan for the conservation storage and release seasons (February-October) in the Willamette River basin. Called the Willamette Conservation Plan (WCP or Conservation Plan), the WCP describes how meeting the authorized project purposes will be accomplished during the conservation storage and release seasons given the volume of stored water forecasted to be available during the present water year. The preparation of the annual WCP is initiated in January following the release of the initial water supply forecast for the basin from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The WCP is finalized by late May in coordination with state and federal agencies, including the USFWS and NMFS. The annual WCP forecasts mainstem flows and stored water volumes likely to occur over the conservation season (based on system operational alternatives and constraints) with consideration given to system operational constraints and to the resulting operation of the WVP for the impending spring, summer, and fall periods. Part of the WCP preparation includes close coordination with the Willamette Action Team for Ecosystem Restoration (WATER) that includes representatives from the USFWS, NMFS, Corps, Reclamation, BPA, OWRD, and ODFW. The WATER team works to coordinate annual development of the WCP and real-time operations for the projects during the conservation season (April through October). 2.1.2 Flow Management Planning The objective of flow management planning is to develop a strategy for the release of stored water after anticipated precipitation and runoff patterns are analyzed (USACE, 2015f). Each year, NMFS, USFWS, Action Agencies, and other WATER members (through the Flow Management Water Quality Team) work cooperatively before and during the conservation storage and release season to plan WVP releases for meeting flow objectives for ESA-listed fish and management for other project purposes. This method is preferable to establishing fixed operating criteria because it is not possible for the Corps to forecast, describe, model, and implement a comprehensive release program that addresses potential management scenarios and contingencies without frequent coordination. Beginning in January of each year, the Corps evaluates whether or not there is likely to be a sufficient volume of WVP stored water to meet flow objectives and WVP conservation storage goals. Each conservation season’s flow management plan is guided by a forecast of water availability, recognizing that hydrologic modeling developed early in the season may result in forecasts that differ markedly from actual conditions later in the same conservation season. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 17 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study The Conservation Plan describes individual reservoir and system flow objectives, reservoir drawdown priorities, minimum and maximum flows, and balances the multipurpose needs given the availability of water. The general operational goal – assuming sufficient inflow of water – is to maintain each reservoir above minimum conservation pool through October 31 while attempting to meet the other project purposes (USACE, 2015f). Since the WCP calls for setting operational flow objectives at Salem beginning on April 1, before the reservoir refill period ends, WVP releases may need to be adjusted through the conservation season. The availability of water is re-assessed as necessary (at a minimum, monthly) through October, and changes in WVP management strategy are made in coordination with the representatives from WATER throughout the conservation season. 2.2 Climate and Climate Change Topography, proximity to the Pacific Ocean, and exposure to middle latitude westerly winds are the principal climate controls for the Willamette River basin. The basin climate ranges from warm dry summers and cool wet winters in the center of the basin to extreme alpine conditions in the highest Cascade Mountain reaches. Rainfall ranges from 40 inches per year in most of the basin to over 200 inches per year in the highest Cascade Mountain reaches; for the entire basin, annual precipitation totals approximately 63 inches – based on rain gage and snow depth data with 60 percent falling during November through March (USACE, 2015f). During the winter months, high-pressure centers are characteristically to the south so that winds consistently come from the relatively warm and humid ocean surface and bring precipitation into the basin. In contrast, summer conditions typically have high-pressure centers near the west coast, which often forces the flow of air over the basin from a northerly direction. This pattern decreases relative humidity and reduces the amount of cloud cover and precipitation over the entire area during summer months. Thunderstorms can occur during the summer, but are not a major source of precipitation in the basin. During spring and autumn, intermediate conditions occur causing alternating wet and dry periods (USACE, 2015f). 2.2.1 Climate Change The most comprehensive study of climate change in the Pacific Northwest is the Pacific Northwest (PNW) Hydroclimate Scenarios Project (2860) (Climate Impacts Group, 2010). Datasets from the Climate Impacts Group study were used by the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute (OCCRI) to write a report for the Corps, titled Historical Trends and Future Projections of Climate and Streamflow in the Willamette River and Rogue River basins (OCCRI, 2015). The OCCRI report describes general climate projections for 2030-2059 as having higher regional minimum and maximum temperatures, meaning that both winters and summers will be warmer, with a greater increase in summer temperatures than winter temperatures. The predicted amount of precipitation varied among the models by both season and whether the model predicted a decrease or increase in precipitation (OCCRI, 2015). Willamette Water 2100 (Jaeger et al., 2017) examined the interactions of humans, hydrology, and ecology on water supply in the Willamette River basin. In the case of precipitation, the three climate scenarios evaluated by Willamette Water 2100 indicate that winters will become slightly wetter and summers slightly drier, but based on the examination of more than 40 climate models, there is no consensus about whether the Willamette River basin’s climate will become wetter or drier overall (Jaeger et al., 2017). Snowpack may be dramatically reduced, and in areas Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 18 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study where streamflow depends on snowmelt, would result in reduced flows that arrive earlier in spring and summer than has been the case historically. However, because spring precipitation plays a much larger role than snowpack in determining spring and summer flows, the reduction in snowpack would likely have little effect on the supply of water for human uses in the lower basin (Jaeger et al., 2017). Trends in precipitation have been similarly examined by others and Dalton et al. (2017), and show that annual precipitation totals (1895-2015) averaged over Oregon ranged from 22 inches in 1930 to about 49 inches in 1996 with an anemic trend – 0.73 inch increase per century – in annual totals. Likewise, averaged over the Pacific Northwest, there was no significant trend in annual precipitation from 1901-2012, although a positive trend was noted for spring. Interannual-to-decadal variability dominated the data so there were no long-term trends in precipitation identified (Dalton et al., 2017). FR/EA Appendix K (Discussion of Climate Change Impact on Future Regulation) provides an overview of applicable literature and a summary of climate change impacts on stored water needs for meeting BiOp flow objectives. FR/EA Appendix A (Municipal and Industrial Demand and Supply Analyses) Section 12 provides peak season stored water forecasts for M&I demand that incorporate climate change-induced live flow supply reductions and climate change-induced demand increases. FR/EA Appendix B (Agricultural Irrigation Demand Analyses) Section 8 describes the expected increase in AI demand for stored water in response to anticipated summer temperature increases. 2.3 Water Quality The following information on the water quality of the Willamette River is summarized from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) report titled “More Information About the Willamette River Report Card Water Quality Indicator” (ODEQ, 2015). The ODEQ laboratory monitors a network of 160 river sites six times each year to assess the water quality status and trend of Oregon’s rivers and streams. As shown in Figure 2-2, these sites include nine sample sites on the Willamette River from Springfield/Eugene to the Saint John’s Bridge in Portland (ODEQ, 2015). The Willamette River is segmented into three assessment regions for water quality comparisons: 1. upper Willamette River (approximately from Springfield/Eugene to Albany); 2. mid Willamette River (from Albany to Newberg); and 3. lower Willamette River (from Newberg to the confluence with the Columbia River). Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 19 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Figure 2-2 ODEQ Water Quality Monitoring Sites in the Willamette River Source: ODEQ, 2015. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 20 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Since the 1970s, ODEQ has consolidated these data into the Oregon Water Quality Index (OWQI) where trends are shown using the three-year average of seasonal minimum measurements for eight water quality parameters: pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total solids (TS), ammonia + nitrate nitrogen (N), total phosphorus (P), fecal bacteria, and water temperature (ODEQ, 2015). The overall water quality of the Willamette River declines from very good conditions in the upper region to fair conditions in the lower region (ODEQ, 2015). Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total solids (TS), and nutrients (N and P) show the greatest declines from upstream to downstream. However, all three regions and individual sites show an overall improving trend in water quality. Of the individual sites assessed, six show improving water quality trends and three show no change in water quality (no sites show declining water quality trends). Most individual parameters also show improving trends with only BOD and total solids being the two parameters with the most declining condition trends. Examination of the 30-year trend of OWQI scores for each of the three assessment regions showed that all reaches and sites show a consistent overall improvement in water quality. This is noteworthy because, since 1980, the population of the Willamette River basin increased by approximately one million persons (ODEQ, 2015). The status and trend for each water quality parameter reported are summarized below. pH. pH is an indicator of the acid/base balance of water. It is an important water quality parameter that has many effects on aquatic life, including direct impacts on the health and survival of aquatic organisms, as well as indirect effects on overall water chemistry. Most aquatic species in the Willamette River are comfortable in a pH range around neutral (7), and become increasingly stressed at pH below 6.5 and above 8.5. The pH levels of the Willamette River are generally in a desired range for protecting aquatic life in all assessment sections with no change in trend (ODEQ, 2015). Dissolved Oxygen (DO). DO is the amount of oxygen gas dissolved in the water, and is critically important for the breakdown of organic material and release of energy for growth and activity. Minimum DO requirements can vary with different species and different life stages, but sensitive species like salmon and trout need fairly high DO levels at or near saturation at all life stages to survive and thrive. The DO levels in all assessment reaches are at or near the levels needed to protect sensitive aquatic life most of the time with improving DO trends in the mid and upper reaches (ODEQ, 2015). Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD). BOD is the amount of dissolved oxygen needed by aerobic organisms in a water body to break down organic material present in the water in a certain amount of time and at a certain temperature. BOD is widely used in water quality assessments as an indication of the overall amount organic material in water. Inputs of organic material into the water that would increase BOD include soil erosion, dead plant material, sewage treatment plant and industrial discharges, animal waste, or anything that can be decomposed by microorganisms. Overall, BOD is the worst performing OWQI parameter in the Willamette River with BOD in fair condition in the mid and upper reaches, and mostly poor condition in the lower reach. This represents an overall decline in BOD condition from upstream to downstream in the Willamette River. In addition, these BOD trends are unchanging in the upper reach and mostly in declining condition in the mid and lower reaches (ODEQ, 2015). Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 21 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Total Solids (TS). TS is the weight of material remaining when a known volume of water is evaporated to dryness. It includes all dissolved and suspended material and is an indication of the amount of sediment suspended the water column. High TS can impair the ability of fish to find prey and avoid predators, can smother fish eggs and benthic organisms, decrease intergravel dissolved oxygen, and eliminate or impair benthic fish and macroinvertebrate habitat. In general, the TS condition declines from upstream to downstream with an overall unchanging 10year trend in the mid and lower reaches, and declining condition trend in the upper reach (ODEQ, 2015). TS in the upper reach (specifically at the Springfield site) is one of the few indicators that has a declining 10-year condition trend (ODEQ, 2015). Nitrogen and Phosphorus Nutrients (N and P). The nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient parameters in the OWQI is dissolved inorganic nitrogen in the form of ammonia, nitrate and nitrite combined, and total phosphorus, mostly in the form of phosphate. As nitrogen and phosphorus are necessary nutrients for algae and aquatic plants to grow, they are also necessary for terrestrial plant growth. Fertilizer containing nitrogen and phosphorus is applied to crops, forest lands, gardens, and lawns to stimulate growth. Fertilizer nutrients applied in excess of what the plants take up for growth can enter groundwater and streams and increase algae growth. In addition, soil erosion, sewage plant discharges, and decomposition of organic material are also sources of these nutrients. The overall pattern in the Willamette River is that nutrient conditions decline (i.e., concentrations of these parameters increase) from upstream to downstream. Nitrogen conditions range from very good to good in the upper reach and from poor to very poor in the lower reach. Phosphorus conditions similarly range from good to fair in the upper reach, fair in the middle reach, and mostly poor in the lower reach. The 10-year trends for both nutrients (N and P) are improving at all sites and assessment reaches (ODEQ, 2015). Bacteria (E. coli). Escherichia coli (E.coli) is a bacterium that lives in the intestines of warm blooded animals (mammals and birds); ODEQ tests rivers for E. coli as an indicator organism for fecal pollution as its presence is an indication of fecal contamination. E. coli in surface water can originate from a variety of sources including failing septic systems, discharges of untreated or poorly treated sewage, and storm water runoff carrying feces into surface water from domesticated animals and wildlife. E. coli concentrations are below the level safe for swimming and other contact water recreation most of the time in all three reaches of the Willamette River; since the 1980s, high E. coli levels usually associated with rainy weather have declined to a nearly non-existent level in the Willamette River (ODEQ, 2015). Water Temperature. Water temperatures in the Willamette River have been rising over the past decade due to drought, decreased snow pack, and changing flows (Costanzo et al., 2015). The trend of increased water temperature threatens ESA-listed fish in the basin such as Chinook salmon and winter-run steelhead trout because they are cold-water fish and require water temperatures in the range of 8-15ºC (45-60ºF) for optimal survival and reproduction (Costanzo et al., 2015). As temperatures rise, salmon and steelhead become stressed and are more susceptible to disease, increasing the risk of pre-spawning mortality. Analysis of river temperature and its environmental implications is based on state temperature standards for the protection of ESA-listed fish in the Willamette River. U.S. Geological Survey flow gage data loggers continuously record temperature in 15 minute intervals. Using these data, the 7-day average maximum temperature (7DAM) was calculated from June 21, 2014 to September 22, 2014 – when water temperatures are the warmest for the year – and compared to the applicable water quality temperature standard assigned to each of the three assessment Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 22 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study regions of the Willamette River. The standards for each assessment region depend on the life histories of designated fish species at that location and time of year. The two most downstream stations are designated as “salmon and steelhead migration corridors” with a 20ºC 7DAM criterion and the other stations are located in “salmon and trout rearing and migration designated fish use areas” with an 18ºC 7DAM criterion. This distinction results in the temperature standard being slightly warmer in the lower river (i.e., less restrictive) than the standard applied to the middle and upper river (Costanzo et al., 2015). The reported results are the percent of 7-day average maximum temperatures meeting the temperature standards for each reach during the 94-days from June 21 through September 22, 2014. The data showed that the lower Willamette River stayed cooler than the temperature standard on 21 of 94 days (22-percent of the days), the mid Willamette River stayed cooler than the temperature standard on 16 of 94 days (17-percent of the days), and the upper Willamette River stayed cooler than the temperature standard on 22 of the 94 days (23-percent of the days) (Costanzo et al., 2015). 2.4 ESA-Listed Fish In 2015, NMFS, through the Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NFSC), published its Status Review Update for Pacific Salmon and Steelhead Listed Under the Endangered Species Act: Pacific Northwest (NFSC, 2015). The 2015 NFSC document contains the most recently updated information on the Pacific salmon ESU and steelhead DPS populations and it is incorporated-byreference. The USFWS’ Recovery Plan for the Coterminous United States Population of Bull Trout (2015) summarizes the current status of the bull trout and is also incorporated-byreference. The following sections summarize biological information for the UWR Chinook salmon ESU, UWR winter-run steelhead DPS, and the bull trout. 2.4.1 Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESU In 1999, NMFS listed the Upper Willamette River Chinook ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) (UWR Chinook salmon) as a threatened species under the ESA. This ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of spring-run Chinook salmon in the Clackamas River and in the Willamette River, and its tributaries, above Willamette Falls, Oregon. Six artificial propagation programs are considered to be part of the ESU:  McKenzie River Hatchery Program (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) Stock #24);  Marion Forks /North Fork Santiam River Program (ODFW Stock #21);  South Santiam Hatchery (ODFW Stock #23) in the South Fork Santiam River;  South Santiam Hatchery (ODFW stock #23) in the Mollala River;  Willamette Hatchery (ODFW Stock #22); and  Clackamas Hatchery (ODFW Stock #19) spring-run Chinook hatchery programs (70 FR 37160, 37175). The Willamette/Lower Columbia Technical Recovery Team (WLCTRT) identifies seven independent, historical populations within this ESU:  Clackamas River Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 23 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study  Molalla River  North Fork Santiam River  South Fork Santiam River  Calapooia River  McKenzie River  Middle Fork Willamette River UWR Chinook salmon are one of the most genetically distinct groups of Chinook salmon in the Columbia River basin. Historically (before the laddering of Willamette Falls), passage by returning adult salmonids over Willamette Falls was possible only during the winter and spring high-flow periods. The early run timing of UWR Chinook salmon relative to other lower Columbia River spring-run populations is viewed as an adaptation to flow conditions at Willamette Falls. Since the Willamette Valley was not glaciated during the last epoch, the reproductive isolation provided by Willamette Falls was probably uninterrupted for a considerable time and provided the potential for significant local adaptation relative to other Columbia River populations. Historically the Upper Willamette supported large numbers (perhaps exceeding 275,000 fish) of UWR Chinook salmon (Myers et al. 2006). Currently, abundance levels are well below their recovery goals (NFSC, 2015). The 2015 NFSC status review concluded that the UWR Chinook salmon ESU population risk trend is “declining” compared to its previous 2010 review. The Clackamas and McKenzie Rivers have previously been viewed as natural population strongholds, but both have experienced declines in abundance. Overall, populations appear to be at either moderate or high risk (NFSC, 2015). In its 2016 five-year status review, NMFS concluded that the UWR Chinook salmon ESU should remain listed as a threatened species under the ESA (NMFS, 2016). The major limiting factors for UWR Chinook salmon, as described in the 2008 NMFS BiOp, include:  Degradation of the Willamette River mainstem and lower reaches of all the tributaries to the Willamette River (e.g., reduced habitat complexity, reduced access to off-channel habitat, reduced floodplain function and connectivity, loss of holding pools, elevated water temperatures, insufficient stream flows, toxic water pollutants, and altered substrate compositions);  Changes in estuary habitat;  The existence and operation of the WVP;  Hatcheries management (risk for genetic introgression due to the high proportions of hatchery-origin fish on the spawning grounds);  Predation (yearling smolts from birds and mature fish predation by pinnipeds - e.g., sea lions and seals) at the base of the Willamette Falls); and  Unfavorable ocean and climate conditions. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 24 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 2.4.2 UWR Winter-Run Steelhead DPS NMFS listed the Upper Willamette River Winter-Run Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (UWR steelhead) as a threatened species under the ESA in 1999. This DPS includes all naturally spawned populations of winter-run steelhead in the Willamette River and its tributaries upstream of Willamette Falls to the Calapooia River. This DPS does not include any artificially propagated steelhead stocks that reside within the historical geographic range of the DPS. Hatchery summer-run steelhead occur in the Willamette River basin but are an out-of-basin stock that are not included as part of the DPS (71 FR 834, 849). There are four independent populations recognized within the UWR winter-run steelhead DPS:  Molalla River,  North Fork Santiam River,  South Fork Santiam River, and  Calapooia River. UWR winter-run steelhead are genetically distinct from steelhead in the lower river. Reproductive isolation from lower river populations may have been facilitated by Willamette Falls, which is known to be a migration barrier to some anadromous salmonids (USACE, 2000). UWR winter-run steelhead enter the Willamette River beginning in February until about May, but they do not ascend to their spawning areas until late March or April. Spawning takes place from March to June (Myers et al., 2006; ODFW & NMFS, 2011). The major limiting factors for UWR winter-run steelhead trout, as described in the 2008 NMFS BiOp, are identical to those listed above for the UWR Chinook salmon. 2.4.3 Bull Trout The USFWS listed all populations of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) within the coterminous United States as a threatened species in 1999 (64 FR 58910). USFWS combines bull trout core habitat (i.e., habitat that could supply all elements for the long-term security of bull trout) with core populations (i.e., a group of one or more local bull trout populations that exist within core habitat) to create a “core area,” which is the basic unit on which to gauge recovery within a recovery unit. There are six bull trout recovery units, which are used in the USFWS’ Recovery Plan for the Coterminous United States Population of Bull Trout (2015) and the Coastal Recovery Unit (including the Upper Willamette River, Clackamas River, North Santiam River, and South Santiam River are located within this recovery unit) is within the Willamette River basin. Of all the native salmonids in the Pacific Northwest of the United States, bull trout have the most specific habitat requirements, which are often referred to as “the four Cs”: cold, clean, complex, and connected habitat. These requirements include cold water temperatures compared to other salmonids (often less than 54 degrees Fahrenheit); the cleanest stream substrates; complex stream habitat including deep pools, overhanging banks and large woody debris; and connectivity between spawning and rearing areas and downstream foraging, migration, and overwintering habitats. Habitat components that influence bull trout distribution and abundance include water temperature, cover, channel form and stability, valley form, spawning and rearing substrate, and migratory corridors (USFWS, 2015). Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 25 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Bull trout express both resident and migratory life history strategies. Resident forms of bull trout complete their entire life cycle in the tributary or nearby streams in which they spawn and rear. Migratory bull trout spawn in tributary streams, where juvenile fish rear for one to four years before migrating to either a lake (adfluvial form), river (fluvial form), or in certain coastal areas, to saltwater (anadromous). Resident and migratory forms may be found together, and either form may give rise to offspring exhibiting either resident or migratory behavior. Bull trout normally reach sexual maturity in four to seven years; they frequently live for 10 years and occasionally for 20 years or more (USFWS, 2015). Bull trout typically spawn from August to November during periods of decreasing water temperatures. Migratory bull trout frequently begin upstream spawning migrations as early as April. Depending on water temperature, egg incubation is normally 100 to 145 days, and after hatching, young fry remain in the substrate. Time from egg deposition to emergence of fry may surpass 200 days. Fry normally emerge from early April through May, depending on water temperatures and increasing stream flows (USFWS, 2015). USFWS originally designated bull trout critical habitat in 2005 (70 FR 56212), and then revised it in 2010 (75 FR 63897). There are nearly 200 stream miles designated as critical habitat within the Willamette River basin (194.3 stream-miles) representing less than one percent of the rangewide stream miles designated as critical habitat for bull trout (21,918.7 stream miles range-wide). The primary constituent elements of bull trout critical habitat, as described by USFWS in the 2010 final revised critical habitat rule, include: 1. Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water connectivity (hyporheic flows) to contribute to water quality and quantity and provide thermal refugia; 2. Migration habitats with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and freshwater and marine foraging habitats, including but not limited to permanent, partial, intermittent, or seasonal barriers; 3. An abundant food base, including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage fish; 4. Complex river, stream, lake, reservoir, and marine shoreline aquatic environments, and processes that establish and maintain these aquatic environments, with features such as large wood, side channels, pools, undercut banks and unembedded substrates, to provide a variety of depths, gradients, velocities, and structure; 5. Water temperatures ranging from 2 to 15 ºC (36 to 59 ºF), with adequate thermal refugia available for temperatures that exceed the upper end of this range. Specific temperatures within this range would depend on bull trout life-history stage and form; geography; elevation; diurnal and seasonal variation; shading, such as that provided by riparian habitat; streamflow; and local groundwater influence; 6. In spawning and rearing areas, substrate of sufficient amount, size, and composition to ensure success of egg and embryo overwinter survival, fry emergence, and young-of-theyear and juvenile survival. A minimal amount of fine sediment, generally ranging in size from silt to coarse sand, embedded in larger substrates, is characteristic of these Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 26 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study conditions. The size and amounts of fine sediment suitable to bull trout would likely vary from system to system; 7. A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic and seasonal ranges or, if flows are controlled, minimal flow departure from a natural hydrograph; 8. Sufficient water quality and quantity such that normal reproduction, growth, and survival are not inhibited; and 9. Sufficiently low levels of occurrence of nonnnative predatory (e.g., lake trout, walleye, northern pike, smallmouth bass); interbreeding (e.g., brook trout); or competing (e.g., brown trout) species that, if present, are adequately temporally and spatially isolated from bull trout. At the time of the listing in 1999, bull trout – although still widely distributed – were estimated to have been extirpated from approximately 60 percent of their historical range (USFWS, 2015). USFWS completed a five-year status review of bull trout in 2008, and found that listing the species as “threatened” remained warranted range-wide in the coterminous United States. In its review, USFWS evaluated the status of the 121 core areas recognized at that time; of those, 23 exhibited population trends that were declining from slightly to severely, 18 were stable, 14 were increasing, and 66 were unknown. The USFWS also found that 75 core areas had substantial or moderate, imminent threats, with the remainder being less threatened (USFWS, 2008a). Based on the 2008 five-year status review, USFWS reported in its most recent recovery report to Congress that bull trout were “stable” overall range-wide (i.e., the species status neither improved nor declined during the reporting year), with some core area populations decreasing, some stable, and some increasing (USFWS, 2010). The major limiting factors for the bull trout, which are described in the USFWS 2008 BiOp and the 2015 bull trout recovery plan are (USFWS, 2015):  Habitat degradation (e.g., passage barriers impair connectivity, increase population isolation, and increase habitat fragmentation, and nonpoint source water pollution from livestock grazing, mining, residential development, and urbanization);  Fisheries management activities (e.g., incidental bycatch mortality may impact bull trout in some core areas);  Natural events (e.g., wildfire, drought, and flooding);  Nonnative species (e.g., lake trout and brook trout) can outcompete and prey upon bull trout in lake environments where they co-occur or other large predators that may prey upon and/or compete or hybridize with bull trout. Brook trout is a congeneric species that competes with, and can hybridize with, bull trout;  Predation (e.g., brown trout and northern pike have been documented as predators on juvenile and sub-adult bull trout); Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 27 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study  Climate change (e.g., vulnerable to the effects of warming climate, changing, precipitation and hydrologic regimes, changing stream temperatures, amount of groundwater base flow contribution to the stream, lower summer flows inhibiting movement between populations, and increased frequency and extent of wildfires). In their 2008 BiOp, the USFWS (USFWS, 2008) reviewed the effect of the continued operation and maintenance of the WVP and concluded, “after reviewing the current status of bull trout, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects, it is the FWS’ biological opinion that the proposed action, as modified by the NMFS’ RPA, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the coterminous United States population of bull trout.” 2.5 Flood Risk Management Documented floods in the Willamette River basin occurred in 1814, 1843, 1844, 1849, 1852, and 1861, when the largest peak flood flow of 500,000 cfs was recorded at Salem. About 510,000 acres of land were flooded in 1861. Another major flood occurred in the basin in 1964, inundating over 320,000 acres of land – regulation of the WVP held the peak flood stage at Salem to 37.8 feet with a discharge of 309,000 cfs. Flooding still occurred (Willamette River flood stage is 28 feet at Salem), though without the WVP in place, peak flood stage would have been 45.3 feet with a discharge of 472,000 cfs. The elevation of the 1861 floodwater reached some 17 feet higher than the flood of 1964, though the 1964 flood was regulated by the WVP to reduce flood risk. The major flood season generally runs from the middle of November through early February. Floods result principally from rainfall, augmented by snowmelt. House Document 531 established the guidelines for flood season operation for the WVP. Two types of flood storage were created. Primary flood storage provides risk management for floods of record except for the 1861 flood – the largest flood of record. Secondary flood storage provides risk management for the primary flood level up to the 1861 level, and can be used jointly for flood risk management and power production purposes. The legislation mandates that secondary flood storage at the non-power projects, as well as primary flood storage, must be evacuated at the start of each flood season. Cougar and Hills Creek, as well as primary flood storage at Lookout Point, Green Peter and Detroit, must be evacuated at the start of each flood season. Current practice is to evacuate all projects (excluding Big Cliff and Dexter) to minimum conservation pool prior to the beginning of the flood season. After a flood, evacuation of water for primary storage is accomplished as rapidly as dictated by release schedules specific to each project (typically within seven to 10 days). Water evacuated from secondary storage is generally used for power generation. If another flood is imminent, however, releases are made through regulating outlets to evacuate the reservoirs to minimum flood risk management pools. 2.6 Federal Hydroelectric Power Generation Federal hydroelectric power facilities were constructed by the Corps at eight of the 13 WVP dams. The electrical energy generated at the projects is marketed by BPA throughout the Pacific Northwest and Pacific Southwest over transmission systems built and maintained by BPA. The BPA is responsible for repaying to the U.S. Treasury all costs allocated to the federal power Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 28 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study facilities. These costs include the initial and replacement construction costs for specific power facilities, such as the powerhouse, and hydropower's share of the joint facilities, such as the dam. These investment costs are repaid over a 50-year period. In addition, BPA reimburses the U.S. Treasury for the annual operation and maintenance costs allocated to hydropower at each project, and the interest on all these costs. All WVP hydropower facilities include exclusive storage for power generation. This storage is relatively small, and drawdowns into this storage are limited to special power requirement periods that may occur during a period of extended cold weather. In general, exclusive power storage is kept full to increase the hydraulic head for power generation. Operation of the power facilities at the projects is a highly coordinated effort between the Corps and BPA. Electrical power is dispatched through BPA’s Dittmer station located at Vancouver, Washington. Daily power generation schedules are made by the Reservoir Control Center (located in the Portland District of the Corps), after discussions with the BPA scheduling team. The close coordination between these offices enables additional flexibility in WVP operations when the need arises for power and non-power emergency operation. There are no specific plans for major improvements or major rehabilitation activities at any of the power projects, and no commitments to operational changes for power production purposes. Due to aging of the WVP power production facilities, some minor reductions in capacity could be expected because of lost reliability and deterioration as units are taken off-line more frequently for maintenance, or experience emergency/unplanned outages. Also, it is unlikely that new power facilities would be added to the WVP by federal or non-federal entities, though a non-federal entity recently added power generation to Dorena Dam. 2.7 Agricultural Irrigation Water Use The expansion of AI was slow until the 1940s. There were about 1,000 irrigated acres of farmland in the Willamette River basin in 1911 and 3,000 irrigated acres in 1920. By 1930, the basin contained 5,000 irrigated acres, which increased to 27,000 acres by 1940. A dramatic increase in the number of irrigated acres occurred in the Willamette River basin during the postwar decades. In 1964, approximately 194,000 acres were irrigated in the basin (OWRB, 1967). Irrigated acreage increased to about 300,000 acres by 2007, and irrigated acreage reported for 2012 decreased to a level of 250,000 (2007 and 2012 reported values from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Agriculture)15. AI was recognized as a project purpose in the WVP authorizing legislation, and irrigation was thought to be the largest future use of WVP stored water. However, agriculture in the Willamette Valley has not grown at the rate foreseen in the authorizing documents. Water use and conservation practices employed by the agricultural community also have changed since the WVP was authorized. WVP conservation storage totals approximately 1,590,000 acre-feet. Of this total, only 74,950 acre-feet are currently contracted through Reclamation for irrigation use, though it should be noted that the vast majority of AI is not reliant on Reclamation water service 15 2012 Census of Agriculture, Table 10. Total of Irrigated Land for the counties of Benton, Clackamas, Columbia, Douglas, Lane, Lincoln, Linn, Marion, Multnomah, Polk, Washington, and Yamhill. While irrigated acreage from Columbia County, Douglas County, and Lincoln County are included in the totals, it should be noted that each county contains large portions of land that are not within the Willamette River basin. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 29 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study contracts. At the current low level of use for water service contracts it is typically not necessary for the Corps to make special operational adjustments (i.e., increasing WVP releases) to meet current contract requirements. However, Detroit Dam on the North Santiam River and Fern Ridge Dam on the Long Tom River include operational adjustments to satisfy Reclamation’s water service contracts. Oregon’s 2015 Statewide Long Term Water Demand Forecast (OWRD)16 provides a 2015 estimate of 605,700 acre-feet of water per year diverted for AI use within the Willamette River basin, and an estimate of 708,400 acre-feet by the year 2050 under hotter-drier conditions (a 35year increase of 102,700 acre-feet). Irrigation water rights in Oregon identify a season of use, a rate, and a duty of water, which vary by location within the state. The season is the period of the year in which the right can be exercised, which typically corresponds to the growing season and may be extended if asked to do so by the Oregon Department of Agriculture.17 The rate is the maximum amount of water that may be diverted or pumped, which is normally expressed in cubic feet per second (cfs). Duty is the volume of water that can be applied over the course of the season associated with the water right, which is normally expressed in acre-feet of water applied per acre. The maximum rate cannot typically be sustained on a full-time basis without exceeding the duty; from a practical water-use accounting standpoint, few water rights holders measure their rates, or their duties. 2.8 Municipal and Industrial Water Use Some of the largest cities18 in the Willamette River basin rely on the Willamette River and its tributaries for domestic water, and to serve municipal and industrial needs. Oregon’s 2015 Statewide Long Term Water Demand Forecast (OWRD) provides a 2015 estimate of 361,100 acre-feet of water per year demanded by M&I systems within the Willamette River basin. The report also provides an M&I system estimate of 436,800 acre-feet of water that would be required by the year 2050 (a 35-year increase of 75,700 acre-feet). As population increases throughout the basin, M&I system needs increase – putting pressure on existing water supplies. Despite the fact that Congress authorized the WVP for multiple purposes, including “relatively low cost for domestic use when current facilities can no longer meet the demand”, Reclamation’s storage rights for WVP conservation storage are designated only for irrigation use. As such, no M&I supplier may obtain a secondary water right from OWRD for the use of WVP stored water for purposes other than for irrigation. To date, M&I systems have developed and rely on other water sources, though population growth eventually would lead to a demand for water that exceeds existing supplies for many M&I systems throughout the basin Throughout the basin, some industrial facilities obtain water directly (through their own water rights) instead of purchasing supply from an M&I system – referred to as self-supplied industrial (SSI) water users. Oregon’s 2015 Statewide Long Term Water Demand forecast provides a 2015 16 Available on line at http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/LAW/docs/IWRS/OWRD_2015_Statewide_LongTerm_Water_Demand_Forecast.pdf 17 ORS 537.385. 18 Portland, whose population is supplied water by the Portland Water Bureau is located within the Willamette River basin, but does not rely on the Willamette River or its tributaries as a source of domestic water supply. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 30 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study SSI water use estimate of 283,800 acre-feet, though OWRD forecasts no change in this estimate to the year 2050. M&I systems must fully incorporate future population growth and peak season water supply demand in their long-term planning. As a result, M&I systems apply for water rights that are in excess of water than presently needed so that an adequate supply would be ensured when sufficient numbers of ratepayers live in a community to justify and pay for the construction work. M&I systems are almost never in a position to complete full build-out of their water systems when they apply for a permit, as they lack the immediate need and ratepayer support. Still, the core mission for every M&I supplier is to secure a safe, adequate, and reliable water supply to meet current and future demand. By its nature, then, municipal water supply planning dictates identification of water supplies to meet projected needs decades into the future. Municipalities are often given preferential treatment under the Oregon water rights system because of the public safety component of municipal water use, which is called the “Growing Communities Doctrine.” The following are the components of municipal water use preferences in Oregon, which make up the Growing Communities Doctrine:  M&I systems are not required to initiate construction of surface water diversion works within one year of being issued a water right permit (systems have up to 20 years to initiate construction plus an opportunity for extension);19  If the water right permit is to store water for municipal use, M&I systems have ten years to begin and complete construction of diversion or storage works; however, systems may apply for extensions in ten-year increments;20  An M&I system can certificate a portion of its water right permit, without cancellation of the remaining portion of water authorized to be diverted under the right. To do so, the municipality must “perfect” at least 25-percent of the amount authorized on the permit;21  An M&I system water right generally is not subject to forfeiture. Although a water right that is unused for five consecutive years is presumed forfeited, the presumption is overcome by showing that the use was for a municipal purpose;22  Water rights issued to M&I systems may be used on lands to which the right is not appurtenant, under certain circumstances; and  Municipal uses for human consumption may take preference over other types of senior instream water rights established through the permitting process (as opposed to conversion or acquisition) if OWRD determines that this would be in the public interest. Taken together, this means that there are undeveloped M&I system water rights throughout the basin because use and population for some M&I systems have not yet grown to the extent 19 ORS 537.230. 20 ORS 537.248. 21 ORS 537.260(4). 22 ORS 540.610(2)(a). Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 31 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study reflected in their existing water right permits. It is important to note that undeveloped M&I system uses are considered by OWRD when water availability calculations are conducted. 2.9 Reservoir and Riverine Recreation Recreation opportunities within the Willamette River basin include reservoir-based and riverinebased activities. Both include boating, kayaking, fishing, swimming, camping, day-use, picnicking, and related outdoor activities. The Corps cooperates with the USFS, Oregon State Parks, ODFW, and Linn and Lane counties to build and manage a system of water-related recreation facilities (USACE, 2015f). Corps documentation of reservoir and riverine recreation provides a thorough description of the recreation activities of the WVP, and is incorporated by reference (USACE, 2000). The Portland District also maintains a webpage of WVP recreational activities and access point updates.23 2.9.1 Reservoir Recreation There are more than 50 developed recreation sites along WVP reservoirs (USACE, 2015f). Annual visitation typically builds slowly beginning in April and into May when the reservoirs are beginning to refill and much of the visitation at Corps reservoirs during springtime can be directly attributed to the opening of fishing seasons (USACE, 2015f). Typically, the reservoirs receive a large surge in use during Memorial Day weekend and visitor use builds rapidly through June and July remaining high through Labor Day. In September, visitation begins to decline regardless of reservoir operations with about 60-percent of average annual visitation occurring during the three peak summer months of June, July, and August (USACE, 2015f). Recreational demand in the basin has put more pressure on maintaining WVP reservoirs near maximum conservation pool for the entire recreational season (USACE, 2015f). Over time, a drawdown priority for the WVP has evolved where the projects with highest recreation demand are last to be used for meeting downstream flow requirements, so their pool elevations usually are higher until early September (USACE, 2015f). Conversely, the projects with lower recreation demand are used first for meeting summer flows and are drawn down earlier. The three most important reservoirs for recreational use are Detroit, Fern Ridge, and Foster; these three are last to be evacuated to meet summer instream flow objectives (USACE, 2015f). Recreational power boating in the reservoirs depends on the ability of boats to gain access and egress to the water via boat ramps. There are a total of 33 boat ramps at the different reservoirs in the WVP; the ramps are only usable by boaters when the water level in the reservoirs is at or above a minimum pool elevation necessary to launch (generally three feet above the elevation of the end of the ramp). FR/EA Appendix I (Reservoir-Related Boating Recreation Benefits Impact Analyses) provides the elevations of boat ramps at each WVP reservoir. The following is a description of recreational use at each reservoir listed in decreasing order of recreational popularity, although visitation at each reservoir varies from year to year. Fern Ridge Lake. Fern Ridge Lake is a highly developed reservoir on the Long Tom River and one of the most popular WVP reservoirs for recreation. Its large surface area and consistent winds make it one of the best sailing lakes in Oregon. 23 http://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/Missions/Recreation/Willamette.aspx. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 32 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Detroit Lake. Detroit Lake is located on the North Santiam River and is one of the most frequently visited WVP reservoirs. Detroit Lake has extensive public recreation facilities, although none of them are operated by the Corps; four are operated by the USFS and two are operated by Oregon State Parks. Based on a 2007 State survey of registered boats, Detroit Lake was ranked fourth out of 215 Oregon water bodies by boat-use days. Foster Lake. Foster Lake is a re-regulating reservoir for the Green Peter project located on the South Santiam River. Because it is a re-regulating reservoir, visitors can expect to enjoy a full or nearly full reservoir for the whole summer. Linn County operates six recreational areas on Foster Lake; there are three boat ramps, one day-use area, and one campground with a day-use area. The Corps operates Andrew S. Wiley Park. Cottage Grove Lake. Cottage Grove Lake is located on the Coast Fork Willamette River. The Corps operates all five recreation sites on Cottage Grove Lake (four day-use parks and one campground), which all include extensive facilities to support recreational activities. Dorena Lake. Dorena Lake is located on the Row River and is a popular lake for sailing, sailboarding, and camping. Lane County operates Baker Bay Park, the Corps manages the Schwarz Campground and manages two day-use parks, while the BLM manages the Row River Trail, a 5-mile hiking, biking, and horseback riding trail that borders Dorena Lake. Green Peter Lake. Green Peter Lake is located on the Middle Santiam River and has a primitive, high-mountain lake character, surrounded by private and public forests. Linn County operates a campground, day-use area, and two boat ramps on Green Peter Lake. Dexter Lake. Dexter Lake is a re-regulating reservoir for Lookout Point dam and is popular for day-use recreation activities. The Corps operates Orchard Park, a day-use park on the northeast end and Oregon State Parks operates two recreation areas that provide boat ramps. Fall Creek Lake. Fall Creek Lake experiences moderate visitation relative to other WVP reservoirs. The Corps operates the Tufti day-use area, while Oregon State Parks manages seven parks, including one campground. Cougar Lake. Cougar Lake is relatively large and located on the South Fork of the McKenzie River. The USFS operates one day-use area and several campgrounds on Cougar Lake, but Cougar is not one of the most visited projects because of the distance from population centers (50 miles east of Eugene) and the availability of competing recreation opportunities. Lookout Point Lake. Lookout Point Lake is located on the Middle Fork Willamette River and has the second largest surface area of all the WVP reservoirs, but visitation is relatively low compared to other WVP reservoirs. The Corps operates the Ivan Oakes Campground, Signal Park boat ramp, and Meridian Park. Black Canyon Campground and Hampton Landing are located on the south shore of Lookout Point Lake and are operated by the USFS. The desirability for boating use is limited by a lack of facilities, difficult access, and a high degree of reservoir level fluctuation. Hills Creek Lake. Hills Creek Lake is located on the Middle Fork Willamette River and has limited recreational use due to reservoir operations and limited facilities. The USFS operates all parks on Hills Creek Lake, which include two campgrounds, two picnic areas, and a boat ramp. Blue River Lake. Blue River Lake is a small reservoir located on a tributary to the McKenzie River where the USFS operates two campgrounds and two boat ramps. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 33 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 2.9.2 Riverine Recreation The timing and quantity of flows released from the WVP24 could either benefit or negatively affect downstream recreation opportunities, although WVP operations during the conservation season do not typically have a marked impact on recreational use below the reservoirs (USACE, 2000). Limited data are available for recreational use of riverine segments downstream of WVP reservoirs, but the extent to which boat ramps have been developed on river segments is a reasonable proxy for the relative importance of the river segment for boat-related recreational activities. Figure 2-3 shows the location of boat ramps/boat access points on the tributaries within the Willamette River basin, and illustrates the relative importance of the McKenzie River and North and South Santiam Rivers for riverine recreation. Figure 2-4 depicts river segments within the Willamette River basin that have been federallydesignated as Wild & Scenic Rivers (blue) and state-designated as Oregon Scenic Waterways (green). There are no federally-designated Wild and Scenic Rivers downstream of WVP dams and a single reach of Oregon-designated Oregon Scenic Waterway is below Cougar Dam on the South Fork of the McKenzie River. 24 It should be noted that the WVP does not release or regulate water specifically for downstream recreation, but for other project purposes. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 34 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Figure 2-3 Boating Access in the Willamette River Valley Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 35 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Figure 2-4 Scenic Waterways in the Willamette River Valley Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 36 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 2.10 Navigation Navigation was an authorized purpose of the WVP, but due to a lack of commercial navigation traffic in the upper Willamette River, the WVP was de-authorized for navigation by the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. Reservoir discharges are no longer regulated for navigation above Willamette Falls Lock (USACE, 2015f). WVP authorizing documents (HD 544, 75th Congress, third session, March 16, 1938) stipulated a minimum flow of 5,000 cfs between Albany and the Santiam River, and 6,500 cfs downstream to Salem to provide navigation depths of 6 feet and 5 feet, respectively, above Willamette Falls (USACE, 2015f). Over the years, ODEQ allowed municipalities to construct wastewater treatment plants with the expectation that these navigation flows would remain in effect. In addition, water quality and fishery management strategies have been based on the expectation navigation flow requirements originally established at Albany and Salem would continue. Therefore, the Corps continues to provide these flows to help fulfill the project purpose of improving water quality, even though releases for navigation purposes are no longer required (USACE, 2015f). 2.11 Cultural Resources and Historic Properties For the purposes of this feasibility study, cultural resources include pre-contact and historic archaeological resources, architectural or built-environment resources, places and locations important to Native Americans (which may include burial sites) and other ethnic groups. Historic properties, a type of cultural resources, are any pre-contact or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). The term includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and that meet the National Register criteria. It also includes properties that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, and local levels. The area of potential effect (APE) is approximately 20,452 acres. An APE is defined as the area that encompasses the maximum possible area that could be affected within a geographic boundary to assist with the implementation of an undertaking. Though the APE has not been fully delineated for this feasibility study; the study’s intent is the reallocation of conservation storage within the WVP’s 11 storage reservoirs; therefore, for the purposes of this current study each of the fluctuation zones within these reservoirs are considered the APE. These zones may include recreational areas, reservoir margins, and environmental stewardship areas. During the consultation phase of this feasibility study, the Corps will seek concurrence with the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), affected Tribes and other consulting parties, on the preferred action’s APE. The APE will be delineated on a map, along with a written description of the types of activities that are anticipated to occur that could both directly and indirectly affect historic properties. 2.11.1 Historic Properties The feasibility study’s intent is to reallocate conservation storage from Joint Use to specific authorized purposes, which has the potential to cause a change in the general operations of the dams. This change may include an earlier drawdown period, but not a drawdown below minimum conservation pool. There are 13 reservoirs in the WVP. Eleven (Cougar, Dorena, Detroit, Foster, Green Peter, Blue River, Hills Creek, Fall Creek, Lookout Point, Cottage Grove Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 37 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study and Fern Ridge) reservoirs are authorized for storage and are part of this feasibility study (see Table 2-1). There are 249 recorded archaeological and historic cultural resources within these 11 reservoirs; only five of these sites have been evaluated for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and only two of those are Eligible (see Table 2-1). Fifty-five additional archaeological or historic cultural resources are known, but not formally recorded within the reservoirs for a total of 314 known cultural resources. Of the 314 known cultural resources within the reservoir 152 are either inundated, seasonally inundated, or partially inundated. Table 2-1 Listing of Historic Properties and National Register Evaluations by WVP Project Reservoir Fern Ridge Foster Green Peter Hills Creek Historic Properties 134 8 15 National Register Evaluation 133 Unevaluated / 1 Not Eligible 8 Unevaluated 14 Unevaluated / 1 Not Eligible 4 3 Unevaluated / 1 Eligible Lookout Point 12 11 Unevaluated / 1 Eligible Fall Creek 29 29 Unevaluated Blue River 9 9 Unevaluated Dorena 8 8 Unevaluated Cougar 6 6 Unevaluated Cottage Grove Detroit 102 12 12 Unevaluated 11 Unevaluated / 1 Not Eligible The majority of the lands within the study area have not been inventoried for cultural resources. The probability is high for additional resources, specifically in reservoirs such as Cottage Grove, Fern Ridge, Green Peter, Detroit, Lookout Point and Fall Creek. There are no known traditional cultural properties within the Project areas. The reallocation of conservation storage would not affect pool levels, only the timeframe of which the water may be released. It is anticipated that this change to operations would not adversely affect the known cultural resources. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 38 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 3 Demands for Willamette Valley Project Stored Water 3.1 Demand for WVP Stored Water: Fish and Wildlife The NMFS 2008 BiOp establishes mainstem minimum flow objectives on the Willamette River at Salem and Albany, and tributary minimum flow objectives on Willamette River tributaries located downstream of Big Cliff, Blue River, Cougar, Dexter, Fall Creek, Foster, and Hills Creek dams25. Mainstem flow objectives at Albany and Salem vary depending on the volume of water stored in the WVP, which defines the classification of a water year. Appendix B of the Supplemental BA (USACE, 2007) designates four water year classifications that are based on the combined volume of water in reservoir storage as measured each day from May 10 through May 20 of a given year. The water year classification is then used to determine mainstem flow objectives for April through October of that year. The maximum amount of WVP stored water is 1,590,000 acre-feet and the range of WVP stored water associated with each water year classification is specified in Table 3-1. Table 3-1 Willamette Valley Project Water Year Types 25 Water Year Type Stored Water Between 10-20 May Abundant Greater than 1,480,000 acre-feet Adequate From 1,200,000 to 1,480,000 acre-feet Insufficient From 900,000 to 1,200,000 acre-feet Deficit Less than 900,000 acre-feet Referred to throughout this document as mainstem BiOp flow objectives and tributary BiOp flow objectives. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 39 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Table 3-2 provides the mainstem BiOp flow objectives at Salem and Albany. Tributary BiOp flow objectives are provided in Table 3-3. Table 3-2 Mainstem BiOp Flow Objectives at Salem and Albany (cfs) Salem Flow Objectives (cfs) Period * † Abundant & Adequate Apr 1-30 * 17,800 May 1-31 * 15,000 Jun 1-15 * 13,000 Jun 16-30 * 8,700 Jul 1-31 † 6,000 Aug 1-15 † 6,000 Aug 16-31 † 6,500 Sep 1-30 † 7,000 Oct 1-31 † 7,000 Deficit Abundant & Adequate Insufficient Deficit * 15,000 -- -- -- * 15,000 Insufficient Salem flow objectives are linearly interpolated between Adequate and Deficit flow objectives based on mid-May system storage Albany Flow Objectives (cfs) * -- -- -- 11,000 † 4,500 † 4,500 † * 5,500 † 4,500 † 4,500 † 4,000 † 5,000 † 4,500 † 4,500 † 4,000 † 5,000 † 5,000 † 4,500 † 4,000 † 5,000 † 5,000 † 4,500 † 4,000 † 5,000 † 5,000 † 4,500 † 4,000 5,000 † 5,000 † 4,500 † 4,000 † 4,000 Seven-day moving average minimum flow Instantaneous minimum flow Table 3-3 Tributary BiOp Flow Objectives Downstream of WVP Reservoirs (cfs) Period26 Big Cliff Blue River Cougar Dexter Fall Creek Foster Hills Creek Apr 1-30 1500 50 300 1200 80 1500 400 May 1-15 1500 50 300 1200 80 1500 400 May 16-31 1500 50 300 1200 80 1100 400 Jun 1-30 1200 50 400 1200 80 1100 400 Jul 1-15 1200 50 300 1200 80 800 400 Jul 16-31 1000 50 300 1200 80 800 400 Aug 1-31 1000 50 300 1200 80 800 400 Sep 1-30 1500 50 300 1200 200 1500 400 Oct 1-15 1500 50 300 1200 200 1500 400 Oct 16-31 1200 50 300 1200 50 1100 400 26 The ten periods correspond to a combined set of analysis periods, which includes all partial months as described in the BiOp. The combined set of periods was used to provide a common time period framework for all tributaries. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 40 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study FR/EA Appendix C (Calculation of Water Volumes Required to Meet Willamette BiOp Minimum Flows) details the calculation steps used to obtain the total water volume from the WVP that is used to meet the minimum flow objectives at Salem and Albany on the Willamette River mainstem and the minimum tributary flows downstream of the WVP dams. The total volume calculations described in FR/EA Appendix C have been parsed into different flow components: water derived from WVP storage; water passed through the WVP without being stored to meet BiOp flow objectives, volume shortages in meeting the BiOp flow needs, and other incidental water volumes. These water volumes are calculated for 79 years of flow data for the Willamette River basin by using the program ResSim to model current reservoir operations and then processing the simulation output data. The water volume computations are presented in FR/EA Appendix C for all years in the dataset analyzed, and the water volume computations are summarized in percentile form. The analyses described in FR/EA Appendix C show that all years have at least some calculated shortage in meeting BiOp flow objectives. However, in real-time water management, the minimum flow objectives would be met more frequently than is indicated by the shortage calculations shown in FR/EA Appendix C. High quantities of remaining stored water shown in FR/EA Appendix C Figure 17.2 indicate that with real-time water management there would have been stored water available to release to cover some shortages. Since the ResSim model does not operate to look ahead to predicted stored water levels or forecasted streamflows, there are times that supplemental flows are not released in the simulation when they would have been in real-time water management. This means that some shortages shown in FR/EA Appendix C Figure 17.2 are artifacts of ResSim and not of water management. It can be assumed that in some years, real-time water management would have provided more supplemental flows than calculated by the ResSim model. FR/EA Appendix C Table 17.1e summarizes the maximum amount of stored water needed to fully meet the 2008 BiOp flow objectives at Salem and Albany. In four of the simulated years, this value exceeds the maximum volume of WVP conservation storage of 1,590,000 acre-feet. As such, the peak demand for F&W must be limited to 1,590,000 acre-feet, as it would be infeasible for the WVP to meet a demand for a volume of water that exceeds its conservation storage. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 41 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 3.2 Demand for WVP Stored Water: M&I Systems and SSI This section provides a description of the analyses conducted to develop M&I system and SSI water demand forecasts and water supply deficit forecasts for the peak season of June 1 through September 30 over the 50-year period of analysis (2020-2070). Analyses and estimates presented in this section are provided in more detail in FR/EA Appendix A (Municipal & Industrial Demand and Supply Analyses), which includes M&I system peak season demand and supply deficit projections in addition to those discussed below27. 3.2.1 M&I System Study Area The M&I system study area was initially defined broadly as the geographic boundaries of the Willamette River basin. The vast majority of people in the basin are supported by M&I public water systems that meet basic human needs, provide fire protection, and support business and industrial development. Because this feasibility study is focused on the reallocation of WVP conservation storage, the study area for M&I system demand was limited to M&I systems that draw water (either by surface draw or through wells) from the Willamette River or its tributaries. This refinement of the study area ensures that M&I demand for WVP stored water would not be overstated. Given this distinction, several M&I systems located within the Willamette River basin (though not using the Willamette River or its tributaries as a water source) were excluded from the analysis – systems were excluded ONLY if their source of water supply is located outside of the Willamette River basin. Several systems of varying sizes were excluded on the basis of this rationale, including the Portland Water Bureau (PWB) and those systems whose sole source of supply is the wholesale purchase of water from PWB. The 90 M&I water suppliers in the study area are distributed throughout the Willamette River basin as shown on Figure 3-1, and together serve a total population of approximately 1.62 million persons (62-percent of the entire basin-wide population of 2.6 million persons). It is important to note that the PWB serves a population of approximately 970,000 persons, and is not included in the service area population of 1.62 million. However, the basin-wide population of 2.6 million is generally reconciled by the sum of the study area and the PWB service area (1.62 million + 0.97 million = 2.59 million). The 90 study area M&I systems are of varying service area population sizes. Seven representative population size categories are shown on Table 3-428, along with the number of systems within each size category and the total service area population for each size category. As shown on the table, 62 of the 90 systems (69 percent of all systems) serve a population of 10,000 persons or fewer, though the total population served by these 62 systems amounts to only about 163,000 persons (about 10 percent of the total study area population). The remaining 28 M&I systems serve 90 percent of the study area population, and three of the largest systems 27 M&I system demand projections included in FR/EA Appendix A for the period of analysis are: annual (365-day) average demand; peak season demand estimated by using peak season gallons per capita day over the 122-day peak season; peak season demand estimated by average peak season use; estimated demand assuming that a 10 percent unaccounted-for water loss goal is achieved; and estimated demand for residential and non-residential sectors. 28 Table 2-1 of FR/EA Appendix A (M&I Demand and Supply Analyses). Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 42 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study serve 35 percent of the study area population. Figure 3-2 depicts the geographic extent of the service areas for the study area M&I systems. Table 3-4 Population Size Characteristics of Study Area M&I Water Suppliers Population Category Number of Systems Under 1,000 1,000 to 5,000 5,000 to 10,000 10,000 to 25,000 25,000 to 50,000 50,000 to 100,000 Over 100,000 TOTAL 24 28 10 11 7 7 3 90 2015 Total Population 11,800 72,300 79,000 197,600 235,000 449,700 573,700 1,619,100 3.2.1 Population Projections After the study area was fully defined, population forecasts were developed for each of the 90 study area M&I systems. Population projection estimates used in the analysis were derived from the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis (OEA) Population Forecasts to 2050 and the Regional Water Providers Consortium Population Forecasts to 2045. The period of analysis extends through the year 2070, though population projections for neither of the forecast sources extend through 2070. The methodology used to extend the population projections through the end of the period of analysis was to project the growth rate forward to the year 2070 using the last five-year increment provided in the population projection. Table 3-529 shows total study area M&I systems’ population for 2015 and population projections in 10-year increments through the end of the period of analysis in 2070. The table provides the projections by population category size as of 2015. As shown in the table, total population is projected to grow from a current population of 1,619,100 in 2015 to a population of 2,901,600 in 2070, which corresponds to an average annual rate of growth equal to 1.1 percent. Table 3-5 Study Area Population Projections for the Period of Analysis Population Size Category Under 1,000 1,000 to 5,000 5,000 to 10,000 10,000 to 25,000 25,000 to 50,000 50,000 to 100,000 Over 100,000 TOTAL 29 2015 11,800 72,300 79,000 197,600 235,000 449,700 573,700 1,619,100 2020 12,600 77,400 84,600 217,600 261,900 488,200 618,300 1,760,700 2030 14,300 88,400 96,600 250,400 301,300 554,500 698,500 2,004,000 2040 15,700 98,100 107,200 278,800 332,000 614,200 774,500 2,220,500 2050 17,100 107,000 117,200 303,700 368,400 671,500 844,800 2,429,600 2060 18,600 116,500 127,900 331,300 408,500 732,300 919,100 2,654,200 2070 20,200 126,800 139,600 362,200 453,500 799,200 1,000,100 2,901,600 Table 3-2 of FR/EA Appendix A (M&I Demand and Supply Analyses) Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 43 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Figure 3-1 Geographic Distribution of Study Area M&I Systems Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 44 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Figure 3-2 Geographic Extent of Existing Water District Distribution Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 45 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 3.2.2 M&I System Water Use Metrics Many M&I systems are required to submit planning documents to OWRD and to the Oregon Health Authority (OHA). Generally, suppliers are required to submit a Water Management and Conservation Plan (WMCP) to OWRD30, and a Water System Master Plan (WSMP) to the OHA. Both documents describe the water system and its needs, identify its sources of water, and explain how the water supplier will manage those supplies to meet present and future needs over a 20-year planning horizon. Planning documents for all 90 M&I systems were requested, but 35 planning documents were unavailable for use in the analysis31. In addition, internet sites of all systems for which planning documents were not obtained were investigated to find online information relevant to the analysis. Because extensive, system-specific data are available for many Oregon M&I systems through planning documents, the analysis reflects the use of system-specific data in all calculations, whenever possible. This methodology differs from broad-based M&I demand forecasts in which standardized, or average water use metrics (e.g., gallons per day, gallons per capita day, peak gallons per day, etc.) are applied to a jurisdictional population in order to estimate demand. The water use metrics described below were compiled for all 90 M&I systems – details on their derivation and additional water use metrics are described in FR/EA Appendix A (Municipal & Industrial Demand and Supply Analyses).  Average Daily Demand and Average Gallons per Capita Day. Average day demand (ADD) equals the total annual production divided by 365 days. Production refers to the total amount of water that enters the system from a surface water treatment plant, wholesale supplier, or groundwater well. ADD values were then divided by the system’s service area population to arrive at an Average Gallons Per Capita Day (Average GPCD) figure for each M&I system.  Maximum Daily Demand and Peak Gallons Per Capita Day. Maximum Daily Demand (MDD) represents the maximum daily amount of water used by an M&I system, and is an important value for water system planning. The supply facility’s infrastructure (e.g., treatment plants, pipelines, reservoirs) and water rights must be capable of meeting the MDD. If the MDD exceeds the combined supply capacity on any given day, finished water storage levels would be reduced. MDD for study area M&I providers was obtained through a direct examination of 55 WMCPs and WSMPs for study area systems. MDD values were then divided by the system’s service area population to arrive at Peak Gallons Per Capita Day (Peak GPCD) for each M&I system. 30 WMCP submission is typically required: 1) as a condition of a new water use permit; 2) as a condition of a permit extension of time; or 3) as specified in a final order approving a previous WMCP. 31 It should be noted that both types of planning documents typically are submitted as part of certain permit requirements - when systems are seeking a long term permit extension and must demonstrate a need for increased diversions of water, or when an M&I system is undertaking a major system expansion. It can be presumed that recent permit extensions or major expansions of those 35 systems that would have triggered submission of a planning document have not taken place. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 46 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study  3.2.3 Average Peak Season Use. Average peak season use calculations are based on ADD and the portion of ADD that occurs from June through September. OWRD maintains a database that contains reported water use data on a monthly basis, and these data were downloaded and analyzed for study area M&I systems. For each M&I system, monthly water use data were aggregated by month and divided by annual water use (as reported within the database) in order to arrive at a percent estimate of monthly M&I water use. June through September water use data were aggregated to establish an estimate of a system’s average peak season use. M&I System Peak Season Water Demand Projections As noted above, several projections of M&I system peak season demand are provided in FR/EA Appendix A (Municipal & Industrial Demand and Supply Analyses). The appendix provides projections developed for alternative peak season demand metrics, residential and nonresidential sectors, and assumptions regarding an M&I system’s ability to reduce unaccounted-for water to a level of 10 percent. The M&I system peak season demand estimate selected as the peak season demand component of M&I system peak season supply deficits (described in Section 3.2.6 below) is based on:  Peak GPCD use metric (in total – residential and nonresidential demand combined); and  No incorporation of unaccounted-for water goals. For each M&I system, demand projections were assembled using population projections and the Peak GPCD use metric. Projected population for each year in the period of analysis was multiplied by the system’s Peak GPCD use metric, which, in turn was converted to acre-feet in order to arrive at the M&I demand projections shown in Table 3-632 – which also shows breakdowns by the residential and non-residential sectors. Table 3-6 M&I Systems Peak Season Water Demand – Peak GPCD Use Metric Projection Year Residential (acre-feet) Non Residential (acre-feet) Total (acre-feet) 2020 128,100 65,300 193,400 2030 145,800 73,800 219,600 2040 161,300 81,500 242,800 2050 176,700 88,700 265,400 2060 193,400 96,400 289,800 2070 211,700 104,900 316,600 32 Data derived from Table 5-1 of FR/EA Appendix A, rows labeled Peak Season Demand (Peak GPCD Metric). Additional estimates also are available in Table 5-1 of FR/EA Appendix A. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 47 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 3.2.4 Peak Season Supply Evaluation for M&I Systems Data maintained by OWRD provides detailed information on each entity’s water rights. Additional analyses were undertaken to determine the extent to which each entity could rely on its water rights during the peak season. Water rights listed in each entity’s WMCP were evaluated in order to establish a reliable volume of water which could be stated as existing supply during peak season. M&I systems that draw surface water from the Willamette River mainstem face several permit limitations. The various surface water permit categories that are subject to summer limitations are:    extended permits (i.e., permits that are not fully developed); permits issued after the NMFS 2008 BiOp was issued; and permits junior in priority date to instream water rights. For groundwater permits, the planning rate was limited to current well capacities. Costs to repair wells or drill new wells may be avoided if reliable stored water is available, especially when limitations on the groundwater supply or quality would also affect new wells. Study area M&I systems show total water rights of 2,570 cfs from groundwater and surface water sources for the providers to draw upon to satisfy daily customer demand. However, very real supply constraints (e.g., curtailment conditions based on instream flow objectives) exist for the vast majority of providers that limit the reliable peak season supply to 1,020 cfs. Over the June through September peak season the reliable supply of 1,020 cfs equates to roughly 246,700 acre-feet. An additional 15,000 acre-feet could be used as reliable peak season supply from water storage projects not owned by the Corps (i.e., storage projects other than WVP reservoirs). 3.2.5 M&I Systems Peak Season Supply Deficits M&I system peak season supply deficit projections were assembled using M&I peak season demand forecast and reliable peak season supply estimates described above. For each M&I system, peak season demand for each analysis year was subtracted from its reliable peak season supply (converted to acre-feet) in order determine its peak season supply deficit (if any) for that analysis year. This calculation was conducted for each M&I system individually, and the results aggregated to provide cumulative M&I peak system supply deficits by decade of the period of analysis shown in Table 3-7.33 33 Table derived from Table 7-1 of FR/EA Appendix A (M&I Demand and Supply Analyses). Additional projections also are provided in FR/EA Appendix A. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 48 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Table 3-7 M&I System Peak Season Supply Deficits Projection Year 3.2.6 Supply Deficit (acre-feet) 2020 24,500 2030 36,100 2040 47,800 2050 62,400 2060 81,500 2070 103,200 M&I System Single Source Redundancy Needs M&I systems may enter into contracts for WVP stored water as a means to provide water source redundancy in the event that their primary water source becomes impaired or limited (e.g., as a result of acute or chronic contamination, or low flow conditions). M&I systems that rely on a single source of water were identified using the following criteria: 1. An M&I system is considered to rely on a single source if all of its water rights authorize the use of groundwater, or if all of its water rights authorize the use of a single surface water source. M&I systems with groundwater rights from multiple aquifers were not considered to rely on a single source. 2. If an M&I system relies on the Willamette River or WVP tributary as a single source, WVP stored water could not serve as a redundant supply source for that system. This is because the single source evaluation is intended to determine whether access to WVP stored water could be used in the event of contamination or low flow from a water source other than those controlled by the WVP34. 3. If documentation shows that an M&I system relies on water rights from a single source, but is known to rely on water supply obtained from another M&I system, it is not considered to rely on a single source. Using these criteria, a total of 42 out of the 90 study area M&I systems (47-percent) were determined to be served by a single source. The estimate of water volume required to provide system redundancy is based on total peak season demand for each of the 42 M&I systems determined to rely on a single supply source. In contrast to M&I peak season demand used in calculations of peak season supply deficits (based on the Peak GPCD Use metric), M&I peak season demand used to establish redundant supply needs are based on peak season demand based 34 Low flow conditions for M&I systems that rely on the Willamette River or WVP tributaries is fully evaluated within the analysis of peak season supply deficits (through the examination of reliable peak season supply). Including any demand estimates from those systems in the calculations of single source redundancy needs would overstate the estimate. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 49 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study on the Average Peak Season Use35 metric. Table 3-836 shows the cumulative M&I systems’ redundant supply needs for the peak season by decade of the period of analysis. Table 3-8 M&I System Peak Season Single Source Redundancy Needs 3.2.7 Projection Year Supply Redundancy Needs (acre-feet) 2020 23,700 2030 26,900 2040 29,600 2050 32,400 2060 35,300 2070 38,600 Self-Supplied Industrial Demand Self-Supplied Industrial (SSI) peak season demand represents the demand for WVP stored water for commercial and industrial water users that hold their own water rights – independent of M&I systems. These include a variety of uses, from small facilities to major industrial plants. It is important to recognize that much of the Willamette River basin’s commercial and industrial water use is provided by M&I systems and is captured in the M&I systems category of demand. Those demands are not considered SSI demands, as the SSI category includes only commercial and industrial entities with their own separate water supplies. It was necessary to treat these facilities separately because the data and methodology needed to forecast this category is different from those used for M&I systems. 3.2.7.1 Estimating Future SSI Demand A single data source was used to establish SSI demand for WVP stored water: OWRD’s Water Rights Information System (WRIS) for the Willamette River basin. WRIS was queried for industrial water use categories, and the associated water rights were exported into Microsoft Excel for further processing and vetting to remove duplicate records and outliers. The methodology used to forecast SSI demand for WVP stored water is summarized in the following steps: 1. Identify SSI permits issued annually based on WRIS water rights records. This includes seven categories under the water use classification system: Manufacturing (IM), Commercial Uses (CM), Shop (SH), Sawmill (SM), Log Deck Sprinkling (LD), Laboratory (LA), and Geothermal (GT); 35 See FR/EA Appendix A (M&I Demand and Supply Analyses) for additional information. 36 Table derived from Table 7-5 of FR/EA Appendix A (M&I Demand and Supply Analyses). Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 50 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 2. Determine nominal water rights based on WRIS records. The instantaneous water right flow value associated with each permit was used to determine nominal water rights. This flow value represents the maximum quantity a water rights holder is permitted to divert or pump on an instantaneous basis. It is measured in gallons per minute or cfs; and 3. Apply standard assumptions to all SSI users identified to convert nominal water rights into estimated acre-feet of water use during the peak season of June through September. The conservative assumptions were:  facility operations use 50 percent of the instantaneous water right; and  facilities operate at this level for two shifts (16 hours) per day, seven days a week, 52 weeks of the year. Thirty years of permit data were examined to develop an estimate of annual incremental increase in SSI demand expected to materialize over the period of analysis. The 75th percentile of the distribution was selected as a conservative estimate37 of annual incremental permit demand, equal to approximately 840 acre-feet per year. Data maintained in WRIS includes the beginning and ending days in the year for which all water rights are authorized to be exercised. These data were relied upon in the allocation of SSI water demanded across months in the year. For rights showing no restrictions over the entire calendar year, June-September demand was allocated equally across all peak season months. For rights showing a date restricted use (e.g., begin day authorized: January 1 / end day authorized: March 1) use of the right was allocated entirely to the authorized use window. Using these data, it was determined that the peak season accounts for 42-percent of SSI water use. New SSI demand (through the issuance of new permits) was calculated for all years in the period of analysis by application of the annual growth in new SSI permits (840 acre-feet per year) multiplied by the seasonal factor of 42 percent, or roughly 350 acre-feet per year. Future SSI stored water demand and deficit projections differ from future M&I demand and deficit projections in that future SSI demand over the period of analysis was estimated as a function of new permit demand expected to materialize each year. Therefore, all future SSI water demand would not be an increased use of existing SSI water rights.38 While future SSI demand is expressed in terms of demand for additional water rights, it is unlikely OWRD would issue new SSI water rights during the peak season because: 1. OWRD has determined that surface water is not available for “new” appropriations in many tributaries during the late summer months; 2. Conditions may be placed on “new” permits to incorporate recommendations of reviewing resource agencies (i.e., ODFW, ODEQ) that would limit use under certain low flow scenarios (i.e., during the peak season); 3. A “new” permit would be subject to regulation (cut back or shut off) to protect existing senior water rights; and 37 To ensure that SSI would not be understated – selection of the median (530 acre-feet) of the distribution would be considered a less conservative estimate. 38 Increased use of existing SSI water rights can occur over the period of analysis without impacting the demand for new SSI water rights, which are independent of existing SSI water rights. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 51 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 4. Groundwater may be insufficient or of poor quality for SSI use, and the use of groundwater is limited by the Willamette Basin Program. For these reasons, all future incremental SSI demand is classified as a supply deficit, or a demand for WVP stored water, and are shown in Table 3-939 in acre-feet, cumulatively, by decade over the period of analysis. Table 3-9 Self-Supplied Industrial Peak Season Supply Deficits Year 3.2.8 Peak Season Deficit for New SSI Rights (acre-feet) 2020 350 2030 3,850 2040 7,400 2050 10,900 2060 14,450 2070 17,950 Total M&I Peak Season Demand for WVP Stored Water Below is an overall summary of M&I system and SSI demand (which together are considered total M&I demand) for WVP stored water. M&I systems’ peak season supply deficits, M&I systems’ peak season redundancy needs, and SSI peak season deficits are summarized in Table 3-10 (table data taken from Tables 3-7, 3-8, and 3-9 above) as peak season demands for WVP stored water. Data are provided by decade over the period of analysis. Table 3-10 Total M&I Peak Season Demand for WVP Stored Water 2020 AF 2030 AF 2040 AF 2050 AF 2060 AF 2070 AF M&I Systems Demand (Peak Gallons Per Capita Day Basis) 24,500 36,100 47,800 62,400 81,500 103,200 M&I Systems Single Source Redundancy Demand 23,700 26,900 29,600 32,400 35,300 38,600 350 3,850 7,400 10,900 14,450 17,950 48,550 66,850 84,800 105,700 131,250 159,750 WVP Stored Water Demand Category SSI Demand Total Demand for WVP Stored Water 39 Data taken from Table 8-1 of FR/EA Appendix A (M&I Demand and Supply Analyses). Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 52 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 3.3 Demand for WVP Stored Water: Agricultural Irrigation Agricultural water use varies widely across Oregon, but as a use category, AI accounts for the largest volume of water demand in the state. The analysis described in this section focuses on the estimation of expected future AI demand for WVP stored water. The period of analysis used in this evaluation is 2020 through 2070. Seven separate methods of estimating diverted AI demand were developed to establish AI demand for WVP stored water during the period of May through September. FR/EA Appendix B (Agricultural Irrigation Demand Analyses) provides extensive documentation on all seven methods. The appendix documents four separate estimates that are based on the calculation of crop-specific evapotranspiration using two methods (Blaney-Criddle and Penman-Monteith). Both the Blaney-Criddle and Penman-Monteith methods calculate evapotranspiration for a “reference crop”, though calculations differ between the two methods. Both methods require spatially-referenced (i.e., at the location of the crop under investigation) climatic data in the calculation of reference evapotranspiration. One estimate develops an AI estimate based on reported water use (i.e., actual AI water demand). Two additional estimate methods are based on the legal maximum allowable volume of water to be withdrawn, also referred to as “duty” (typically 2.5 acre-feet of water per acre irrigated). One of the estimates based on duty was selected as being the most representative and acceptable, and is the estimate discussed within this section. 3.3.1 Agricultural Irrigation Study Area Definition of the study area relied on geospatial data obtained from two sources: 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Cropland Data Layer 2. Oregon WRIS 3.3.1.1 U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Cropland Data Layer The identification of cropland and crops in agricultural production relied exclusively on data obtained from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 2014 Cropland Data Layer (CDL) – a GISbased crop-specific land cover data layer with a ground resolution of 30 meters that covers the contiguous United States. The CDL is produced using satellite imagery and remote sensing techniques. Crop classification accuracy of the CDL ranges from 85 percent to 95 percent across the United States, and its data offers crop acreage throughout the growing season. Based on the CDL, there are approximately 1.8 million acres of cropland in the Willamette River basin, growing seventy-one different crops (excluding covered nurseries and greenhouse plants/crops40). Figure 3-3 shows the coverage of all agricultural crops as a single layer within the Willamette River basin, as identified in the CDL. Not surprisingly, agricultural crops are clustered around the Willamette River and its major tributaries. 40 The CDL does not identify these plants/crops or their associated acreage because these crops are grown under cover. The USDA’s Oregon Nursery and Greenhouse Survey – 2010 provides a nursery and greenhouse estimate of 49,750 acres for study area counties, though it is likely that much of this acreage is uncovered and would have been identified by the CDL. The 2010 study also provides acreage estimates of greenhouses and plants grown in containers (1,200 and 9,000, respectively), though these estimates are statewide totals. Available at: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Oregon/Publications/Horticulture/2010_nursery.pdf Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 53 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 3.3.1.2 Oregon Water Rights Information System Data OWRD’s WRIS includes a data set that tracks Place of Use (POU) data. The POUs represent lands on which the permitted withdrawal of water (surface or groundwater) can be applied for irrigation. Available POU GIS data were used to determine which lands within the Willamette River basin hold a legal right to AI. Figure 3-4 depicts the geographic coverage of POU data for AI permits within the Willamette River basin. 3.3.1.3 Study Area Limits The study area for AI demand was defined by those lands capable and suitable for agricultural production and likely to be irrigated. Not all agricultural land located within the Willamette River basin, as shown in Figure 3-3, could cost-effectively access released WVP stored water. Moving water long distances, whether through open channels or pipes, represent substantial costs to potential irrigators that affect the feasibility of using WVP stored water to irrigate lands far from the rivers. For this reason, the project study area was not defined as the entire Willamette River basin. Rather, the project area was defined as a four-mile (linear) boundary from the Willamette River mainstem and tributaries on which WVP reservoirs are located, as shown in Figure 3-5. The four-mile boundary was selected as a result of analyses conducted using existing POU data that showed that the closest edge of over 90-percent of all Willamette River basin AI POUs are located within 1.25 miles of the Willamette River or a major tributary on which a WVP reservoir is located. As the distance increased to four miles, the corresponding percent of POU edges within the four-mile distance increased to 95 percent. In other words, 95-percent of existing use of water is within four miles of the Willamette River or a major tributary on which a WVP reservoir is located. Additional one-mile increments in distance yielded no appreciable increase in the number of POUs captured, so the geographic extent of the study area was established as depicted on Figure 3-5. The study area within the four-mile buffer was further refined to include only those lands capable and suitable for agricultural production. Only those lands in the 4-mile buffer study area classified by the NRCS as “Lands Suited to Cultivation” are considered potentially irrigable. In addition, only areas classified as “Exclusive Farm Use” or “Mixed Farm Forest” were considered suitable for agriculture, and Urban Growth Boundaries were removed from consideration. These resulting modifications to the study area represent lands zoned as exclusive farm use or mixed farm forest, but not within an urban growth boundary (UGB). Total acreage defined in the fourmile buffer (as shown in Figure 3-5) is 1.9 million acres, though the total study area as defined by the NRCS criteria listed above and acreage under agricultural production in 2014 amounts to roughly 573,000 acres. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 54 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Figure 3-3 CDL Coverage of Agricultural Crops in the Willamette River Basin Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 55 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Figure 3-4 WRIS POU Data Coverage in the Willamette River Basin Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 56 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Figure 3-5 Geographic Extent of the AI Study Area with CDL Overlay Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 57 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 3.3.2 2014 Agricultural Irrigation Estimate Year 2014 and projected irrigation estimates were constructed using geo-spatially organized data available at the basin, county, and state level –year 2014 refers to the data year of the CDL used in the analyses. 3.3.2.1 Diverted Water Demand Calculation: Duty Method As described above, duty is defined as the quantity of water that is allowed to be diverted to irrigate a given area. Oregon does not have a statutorily set duty of water, though permits typically contain specific duties. The vast majority of permits issued for irrigation on the west side of the state specify a duty rate of 2.5 acre-feet of water per acre irrigated and most permits issued for nursery use specify a duty rate of 5.0 acre-feet of water per acre irrigated. Out of 551,650 acres with AI permits in the entire Willamette River basin, 527,600 acres (95.6-percent) are specified to be irrigated at a rate of 2.5 acre-feet of water per acre irrigated.41 The calculation of diverted water demand using duty represents the legal maximum of AI that could be applied to crops specified in the CDL. Calculating diverted water demand (DWD) by the application of the average duty requires the determination of the number of acres under cultivation and multiplying by 2.5 acre-feet per acre, as given below. DWD = acres under cultivation * 2.5 acre-feet/acre It is important to note that the diverted water demand values as derived by the duty method represent a theoretical legal maximum volume of water that could be diverted to irrigate crops under production. At this step of the analysis, these values have not been adjusted to reflect whether irrigation occurs on the agricultural lands under production. As such, these volumes of water are not representative of water withdrawn from groundwater, the Willamette River, or its tributaries, but the volumes should be viewed as a theoretical construct only. Additional steps were taken to distinguish between irrigated and non-irrigated cropland in the study area, as described below. Place of Use Spatial Intersection Calculation of diverted water demand merely expresses the crop’s need for diverted water, but does not indicate whether the need for diverted water is legally authorized from existing supply sources for use. Therefore, it was necessary to segment the diverted water demand results of the analyses in order to distinguish between irrigated and non-irrigated cropland since the CDL does not provide this distinction. To identify legally authorized irrigated croplands, the analysis relied on water rights data from the WRIS database and its associated GIS layers. As discussed previously, POU data contained in WRIS represents lands on which the permitted withdrawal of water (surface or groundwater) could be applied. POUs were mapped within the GIS layers of WRIS, and were used in this analysis as an overlay atop the study area boundaries and CDL to identify which areas under agricultural development were associated with a primary water right. Only those crops spatially 41 About 1,500 acres in the Willamette River Basin are specified to be irrigated at a rate lower than 2.5 acre-feet of water per acre irrigated, and 22,550 acres are specified to be irrigated at a rate higher than 2.5 acre-feet of water per acre irrigated. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 58 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study associated with a water right were considered irrigated. By using this process, the 573,000 acres specified as the study area above are associated with roughly 263,300 POU irrigated acres. The 2014 irrigation estimate was based on the typical legal maximum duty of 2.5 acre-feet per acre applied to all cropland with AI permits within the study area. The estimate of 2014 irrigation is refined based on whether cropland identified in the CDL falls within a valid POU as identified by WRIS. The AI estimate for the base year of 2014 totals 658,200 acre-feet of water42 diverted. 3.3.3 Projected Increases in Agricultural Irrigation Projections of future AI through the 2020-2050 period of analysis were developed by assigning increases based on an annual rate of increased agricultural acreage that would be irrigated. 3.3.3.1 Growth in Agricultural Irrigation Acreage Within WRIS, water rights data representing the years 1905 through 2015 were examined to derive an annual rate the increase in irrigated acreage. Based on the review of data, 602 AI permits, representing 36,839 acres of new AI acreage were granted over the past 25 years (1991 through 2015). This growth in AI acreage over the time period was used to develop annual factors by which AI acreage would be projected to grow over the period of analysis (roughly 1,500 acres of new irrigation permits per year). This 25-year examination period was selected because expansion of AI within the basin began in the 1940s and leveled off in the 1990s (Jaeger, et al., 2017).43 Additional detail regarding the development of the assumed annual growth of irrigated acres is provided in FR/EA Appendix B (Agricultural Irrigation Demand Analyses). 3.3.3.2 Projected Study Area Irrigation Estimate For consistency, all forecasted increases to AI acreage were projected to be irrigated at a duty of 2.5 acre-feet per acre. Table 3-1144 provides a projected, cumulative increase in irrigation estimate implementing the annual growth rate in acreage from 2014 through 2070. It is important to distinguish that this estimate does not reflect increased lands in agricultural production (i.e., newly developed farmland), but rather an increase in permitted agricultural acreage on lands already in agricultural production (i.e., existing farmland that is newly irrigated). As shown in the table, demand grows over the 50-year period of analysis from a 2020 estimate of 680,300 acre-feet to an estimate of 864,500 acre-feet in the year 2070. 42 Again, this is a theoretical estimate of the amount of water that could be applied given a duty rate of 2.5 acre-feet of water per acre irrigated, but not an estimate of how much water is applied to irrigated fields. 43 Jaeger, W., A.J. Plantinga, C. Langpap, D. Bigelow, and K. Moore. (2017) Water, Economics, and Climate Change in the Willamette Basin, Oregon (EM 9157). Oregon State University Extension Service. 44 Data derived from Tables 7-3 and 7-4 of FR/EA Appendix B (Agricultural Irrigation Demand Analyses). Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 59 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Table 3-11 Projected Agricultural Irrigation Estimates 3.3.4 Year Irrigated Agricultural Acreage (acres) Diverted Water Demand (acre-feet) DWD Increase from Year 2020 (acre-feet) 2014 263,300 658,200 n/a 2020 272,100 680,300 n/a 2030 286,900 717,200 36,900 2040 301,600 754,000 73,700 2050 316,300 790,800 110,500 2060 331,100 827,700 147,400 2070 345,800 864,500 184,200 Impact of Minimum Perennial Stream Flows on Agricultural Irrigation Within the Willamette River basin, there are several minimum perennial streamflows (MPSFs) that have yet to be converted to instream water rights, as required by state law. These MPSFs specify that a certain quantity of live flow, along with an unspecified amount of water released from storage, must be maintained on major tributaries and at several points along the mainstem of the Willamette River to support aquatic life and to minimize pollution. MPSFs exist in tributaries below the WVP reservoirs. Once converted to instream water rights, the MPSFs will carry a priority date of June 22, 1964. The conversion of the MPSFs to instream water rights may result in the curtailment of junior water rights in the future. To account for this potential increase in AI demand, an analysis was conducted to identify existing primary irrigation water rights that authorize the use of surface water in streams that are expected to have their MPSF converted to an instream water right, but whose water rights are junior in priority to June 22, 1964. Using these criteria, an estimated 62,050 acre-feet of water may become unavailable for irrigators because once established, the priority date of the instream water rights would be 1964. It should be noted that this represents a conservative estimate (i.e., worst-case scenario), where it has been assumed that the MPSFs flow objectives would not be met in the future, thereby triggering a curtailment of all junior water rights by OWRD. 3.3.5 Total Agricultural Irrigation Demand for WVP Stored Water Table 3-12 provides an overall summary of AI demand for WVP stored water. The estimate includes AI demand derived from the analysis summarized in Table 3-11 above, and two additional estimates: AI rights at-risk of curtailment; and Reclamation contracts expected to be in place by year 2020. It is expected that, outside of increases in AI storage demand, 62,050 acre-feet of storage would be requested when the MPSFs are converted to instream water rights to mitigate for the potential curtailment of those AI rights. A reallocation of WVP conservation storage must include the contracted volume of Reclamation contracts in place when conservation storage is reallocated. In the base year of 2020, it is expected that the volume of WVP stored Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 60 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study water under Reclamation contracts for AI would total 81,400 acre-feet. This value is derived in FR/EA Appendix F (ResSim WVP and Live Flow Diversions for Base Year 2020, No Action Alternative, and TSP Model Runs), and shown in FR/EA Appendix F, Table 2. Table 3-12 Total Agricultural Irrigation Demand for WVP Stored Water 2030 AF 2040 AF 2050 AF 2060 AF 2070 AF 0 36,900 73,700 110,500 147,400 184,200 Existing AI Rights at Risk of Curtailment 62,050 62,050 62,050 62,050 62,050 62,050 Reclamation Contracts in Place in Year 2020 81,400 81,400 81,400 81,400 81,400 81,400 143,450 180,350 217,150 253,950 290,850 327,650 WVP Stored Water Demand Category 2020 AF Increase in AI Demand from Year 2020 Total Demand for WVP Stored Water Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 61 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 3.4 Climate Change-Induced Impacts to WVP Stored Water Demands The impact of climate change on water supply is expected to be an issue over the period of analysis. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency states that many areas of the United States, especially the West, currently face water supply issues. Water availability in these areas (including the Willamette River basin throughout the summer months) is already limited, and demand would continue to rise as population grows. Separate analyses of climate change-induced impacts were conducted for each of the three categories of demand for WVP conservation. Discussion of the analyses will not be repeated here, though are available in:  FR/EA Appendix K (Climate Change Impact on Future Regulation).  FR/EA Appendix A (M&I Demand and Supply Analyses), Section 11;  FR/EA Appendix B (Agricultural Irrigation Demand Analyses) Section 8; and Summary results from these three appendices that correspond to the demand for WVP stored water provided above in Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 are provided in tables 3-13, 3-14, and 3-15 below. Table 3-16 consolidates the climate change-induced increases into one table. Table 3-13 F&W Increase in Demand for WVP Stored Water Incorporating Climate Change-Induced Impacts Year Climate Change Induced Impact (acre-feet) 2020 0 2030 46,500 2040 93,000 2050 139,500 2060 186,000 2070 232,500 Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 62 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Table 3-14 M&I Peak Season Increase in Demand for WVP Stored Water Incorporating Climate Change-Induced Impacts Year Peak Season Demand for WVP Stored Water Without CC Impact (acre-feet) Peak Season Demand for WVP Stored Water With CC Impact (acre-feet) Climate Change Induced Impact (acre-feet) 2020 48,550 48,550 0 2030 66,850 71,450 4,600 2040 84,800 99,200 14,400 2050 105,700 134,350 28,650 2060 131,250 172,800 41,550 2070 159,750 216,650 56,900 Table 3-15 AI Peak Season Increase in Demand for WVP Stored Water Incorporating Climate Change-Induced Impacts (growth in irrigated acreage) Year Peak Season Demand for WVP Stored Water Without CC Impact (acre-feet) Peak Season Demand for WVP Stored Water With CC Impact (acre-feet) Climate Change Induced Impact (acre-feet) 2020 n/a 13,700 13,700 2030 36,900 75,100 38,200 2040 73,700 138,400 64,700 2050 110,500 203,900 93,400 2060 147,400 271,200 123,800 2070 184,200 340,600 156,400 Table 3-16 Total Climate Change-Induced Impacts Demands for WVP Stored Water Year F&W Climate Change Induced Impact (acre-feet) M&I Climate Change Induced Impact (acre-feet) AI Climate Change Induced Impact (acre-feet) Total Climate Change Induced Impact (acre-feet) 2020 0 0 13,700 13,700 2030 46,500 4,600 38,200 89,300 2040 93,000 14,400 64,700 172,100 2050 139,500 28,650 93,400 261,550 2060 186,000 41,550 123,800 351,350 2070 232,500 56,900 156,400 445,800 Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 63 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 4 Formulation of Alternative Plans The limited peak season capacity of water sources, coupled with Willamette River basin flows required to benefit ESA-listed fish, pose considerable constraints into the future for expanding M&I withdrawals or diversions during critical times of need. Plan formulation begins with an evaluation of whether or not a reallocation of WVP conservation storage would help to achieve the federal objective of water and related land resources project planning. This objective is to contribute to National Economic Development (NED) consistent with protecting the Nation’s environment, pursuant to national environmental statutes, applicable executive orders, and other federal planning requirements. Peak season demands for WVP stored water were estimated in Section 3 as:  Fish & Wildlife  Municipal & Industrial 159,750 acre-feet per year by year 2070 (Section 3.2.9)  Agricultural Irrigation 327,650 acre-feet per year by year 2070 (Section 3.3.5) 1,590,000 acre-feet per year (Section 3.1) Together, these peak season demands for WVP stored water equal 2,077,400 acre-feet. 4.1 Future Without-Project Conditions / No Action Alternative The CEQ allows that in instances involving federal actions where ongoing programs initiated under existing legislation and regulations would continue, the No Action Alternative would be “no change” from current management direction or level of management intensity (CEQ, 1981). For this analysis, the No Action Alternative may be thought of in terms of continuing with the present course of actions with respect to how the Corps manages the WVP until that action is changed. Under the No Action Alternative (future without-project conditions), there would be no Corps action to reallocate WVP conservation storage and no changes to the current operations to utilize WVP stored water to meet the Congressionally-authorized multiple purposes. With respect to the No Action Alternative, the following assumptions can be made:  The Corps would continue to operate the WVP to meet mainstem and tributary flow objectives to the maximum extent possible as described in the 2008 BiOp (NMFS, 2008);  The Corps would continue to operate the WVP to assist Reclamation in meeting irrigation water contract demands;  Reclamation would continue to issue irrigation water contracts up to, and eventually exceeding, the 95,000 acre-feet per year as described in RPA 3 (NMFS, 2008). As of 2017, Reclamation had issued irrigation water supply contracts for approximately 75,000 acre-feet of water per year, leaving approximately 20,000 acre-feet per year of WVP stored water available for new contracts before triggering the analyses and consultation described in RPA 3. Based on the estimated rate of increase in demand for irrigation water, the need would be projected to exceed the 95,000 acre-feet per year threshold after 2025.  As described under RPA 3, Reclamation and the Corps would need to “reevaluate the availability of water from conservation storage for the water marketing program” when future irrigation demand exceeds 95,000 acre-feet per year. If Reclamation proposed to Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 64 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study issue additional contracts above 95,000 acre-feet per year, re-initiation of ESA consultation would be necessary. Assuming demand for irrigation materializes as projected in this analysis, the consultation would be expected to occur in the early 2020s. It is noteworthy that beyond the required consultation described in RPA 3, there are no other institutional barriers to restrict Reclamation from issuing irrigation water contracts in excess of 95,000 acre-feet per year in the future.  Without a reallocation of WVP conservation storage, Reclamation would not apply for a change in character of use for their storage rights to match a reallocation of conservation storage for uses other than irrigation;  Without a change in character of use for Reclamation’s storage rights, a portion of WVP conservation storage would not be specifically allocated for F&W. OWRD would not issue instream water rights for the use of WVP stored water as described in RPA 2.9. Thus, the Corps would not be able to facilitate OWRD’s conversion of stored water to instream water rights as described in RPA 2.9;  Without a conversion of WVP stored water releases to instream water rights, stored water releases for F&W would continue to be unprotected and continue to be available for use by existing water right holders per Oregon water law; and  Without a change in character of use for Reclamation’s storage rights, future M&I peak season demands would be met through measures that do not include access to WVP stored water. Implications of the No Action Alternative impacts to fish and wildlife are clear. In the event that no action is taken, releases of WVP stored water intended to benefit ESA-listed fish would continue to not be protected by instream water rights, and would preclude the Corps from fulfilling its requirements under RPA 2.9. Similarly, the implications of the No Action Alternative to AI is straightforward – Reclamation would continue to issue irrigation contracts up to and exceeding 95,000 acre-feet per year (subject to additional ESA consultation with NMFS) to meet future AI needs for WVP stored water. The effects of the No Action Alternative on the ability of M&I users to meet peak season demands, however, requires the analyses described throughout the remainder of this section. For this reason, measures were identified to determine whether an allocation of WVP conservation storage would provide benefits to M&I users of WVP stored water. Measures to address M&I peak season water supply are described and screened below – including a measure to utilize WVP stored water. Screening of the measures leads to the identification of three alternatives, from which a proposed action is selected. 4.2 Measures for M&I Peak Season Water Supply A measure is a feature (i.e., a structural element that requires construction), or an activity (i.e., a nonstructural action) that could either work alone or be combined with other measures to form alternative plans. Measures were developed to address future M&I peak season water supply needs, and are derived from a variety of sources including prior studies and M&I system planning documents. The structural and nonstructural measures listed below were identified for evaluation and screening. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 65 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Non-Structural Measure  Conservation / incentive programs / new regulations / public education / drought contingency planning. Structural Measures  Allocation of WVP conservation storage45 for M&I use;  Expansion of existing or new surface water diversions;  Expansion of groundwater withdrawals;  Storage of off-peak season water;  Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR); and  Use of inter-supplier linkages. 4.2.1 Screening of Measures Measures identified above were evaluated to determine which measures should be carried forward in the planning process and included in the formulation of alternative plans. Four criteria are used in the formulation and evaluation of alternative plans: completeness, effectiveness, efficiency, and acceptability. Each measure was screened using these four criteria to determine whether its implementation could make a substantial contribution to achieving the goals and objectives of the study. While none of these criteria are absolute, it is clearly reasonable to screen out from further consideration any measure that: 1. Does not contribute to meeting study goals and objectives to a significant extent (completeness); 2. Is not effective in resolving study area problems and needs (effectiveness); 3. Is not an efficient means of solving the problem when compared to other measures (efficiency); or 4. Is not acceptable in terms of meeting applicable laws, regulations and public policies (acceptability). This is not to imply that some measures that are screened from further consideration may not be beneficial public policies or effective solutions to legitimate problems of the study area. Rather, a measure is screened from further consideration when it can be reasonably determined that the measure would not substantially contribute to meeting study goals and objectives or resolving the problems and needs that the study was initiated to address. 45 Allocation of WVP conservation storage for M&I use is considered a structural measure since there is generally some construction of pipelines and intakes eventually that may be required in order for an entity to access stored water. Although there would be no new federal construction activities for access to WVP stored water, the Corps convention is to consider reallocation (adding an allocation for M&I use) a structural measure. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 66 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 4.2.1.1 Non-Structural Measure - Conservation This measure entails the implementation of water conservation practices to reduce or defer the need for additional water supply capacity. Conservation measures include a combination of activities consistent with Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Division 690-086 that address customer uses, water system uses, and water losses. These activities could include:  periodic audits of production and usage;  leak detection, leak repair, and line replacement;  rate structures and billing practices;  public education;  technical assistance and financial incentives;  retrofit or replacement of plumbing fixtures; and  changes in operational procedures. Conservation is a viable measure for dealing with short-term emergency peak season water supply shortages and temporary drought conditions, but would not provide a complete solution to the long-term peak season water supply needs for future M&I uses. Future conditions assume that M&I systems would continue to address conservation, water use efficiency, drought management and water quality management as they do currently. Because these measures are already being implemented, additional conservation measures would not be complete or effective non-structural solutions, and are not carried forward as a stand-alone measure for further consideration. 4.2.1.2 Allocation of WVP Conservation Storage for M&I Use The need for M&I use of WVP stored water was found to be relatively low when the capacity of the WVP was planned. However, the Flood Control Act of 1950 reauthorized the Corps to construct and operate the WVP, as described in House Doc. 531, which included water supply as an intended and authorized project purpose. Domestic water supply as an authorized purpose is discussed on pages 1735-1736 of House Doc. 531, Volume 5. Paragraph 198, page 1736 states: “The total quantity of water required for domestic use would be small in comparison with the total storage capacity of reservoirs proposed for flood-control and other multiplepurposes uses. Ample storage in individual reservoirs, therefore, would be available at relatively low cost for domestic use when current facilities can no longer meet the demand.” To date, there are no active agreements for using WVP stored water for M&I water supply, though a Surplus Water Supply Agreement between the Corps and the City of Creswell for provision of up to 437 acre-feet of WVP stored water has been finalized46 (USACE, 2014). Allocation of WVP conservation storage for M&I purposes is carried forward as an element in the formulation of alternatives, as this measure could be used to meet a large portion of the 46 The report was finalized but there is no signed agreement resulting from the report as of August 2017. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 67 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study unmet future M&I demand increases throughout the basin. In addition, this measure fully meets the criteria of completeness, effectiveness, efficiency, and acceptability. 4.2.1.3 Expansion of Existing or New Surface Water Diversions Expansion of existing surface water diversions and the development of new surface water diversions were analyzed as a measure to provide additional M&I peak season water supply through the year 2070. Expansion or development of new surface water withdrawal rights for peak season use are typically not suitable supply measures due to low peak season water availability. Given the practical limitations associated with expansion of existing withdrawal rights or the establishment of new surface water diversions for peak season use, this measure would not be a complete or effective solution to apply throughout the basin, and is not carried forward for further consideration. 4.2.1.4 Expansion of Groundwater Withdrawals Groundwater resources in the study area are limited – the geology is such that the aquifers are not highly productive and surficial units are vulnerable to contamination from agriculture or urbanization. The physical setting of the region is such that precipitation follows surface or subsurface pathways to streams resulting in rapid runoff and limited natural water storage. The relatively small amounts of natural storage and low permeability of the region’s aquifers contribute, in general, to a quick decline in streamflow once precipitation ceases. Moreover, recharge to the ground water system, especially the deeper confined units, is limited and withdrawals are often subject to rapid water level decline. The area’s groundwater reserves are marked by low aquifer permeability, resulting in wells and springs with relatively low yields. Additionally, some of the M&I system communities rely on groundwater that has high levels of naturally occurring iron, manganese, and arsenic. The only reliable ground water supplies in the region are located in the local alluvial deposits along the Willamette River. While most of the surface water sources in the Willamette River basin are deemed to be limited during summer months, this lack of water availability also could affect the use of groundwater if OWRD determines that additional groundwater withdrawals would affect, to an impermissible degree, the surface water source. While permitting hurdles and construction costs may preclude the widespread use of this measure throughout the Willamette River basin, increased groundwater withdrawals from newly constructed or existing wells may be able to meet at least a portion of the unmet future demand in some areas of the basin. As such, this measure tentatively meets the criteria of completeness, effectiveness, efficiency, and acceptability, and was retained for further analysis. 4.2.1.5 Above-ground Storage of Off-Peak Season Water This measure includes the creation of new dams and impoundments as well as new intakes, treatment plants, transmission mains, and pumping facilities. This measure could pose substantial environmental issues, as dams used for the impoundment of off-peak season water can block juvenile or adult fish from moving to cold-water refuges that help them survive high summer temperatures. Dams can also increase water temperatures, harbor predator species, eliminate water flows and associated aquatic habitat downstream and induce erosion of the bed and banks of streams and introduce major fluctuations in water levels upstream of the dam impacting biota, aquatic vegetation and riparian zone inhabitants. Permitting hurdles and Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 68 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study environmental impacts most likely preclude the widespread use of off-peak season storage throughout the Willamette River basin. As such, this would not be a complete or effective solution to apply throughout the basin, and is not carried forward for further consideration. 4.2.1.6 Aquifer Storage and Recovery This measure involves the development of ASR systems for off-season storage of water. Water would be diverted from an intake or existing well, and pumped to the ASR system during the non-peak season. During peak season months when diversions would be limited, water stored in the ASR system could be used to help meet increased peak season demand. The use of ASR requires the ability of the aquifer to accept water, the ability to retain water, sufficient storage to reach economy of scale, and favorable aquifer boundary conditions. This shallow recharged water is then recovered as potable water and injected into the aquifer. As an example, The City of Salem began ASR in 1997, and its facilities store up to 600 million gallons per year from its North Santiam River water source. Treated drinking water is transferred to Salem’s ASR wells, where water is stored to meet peak demands or for emergency use. The ASR storage volume is estimated at 600 million gallons and current theoretical supply capacity of Salem’s system is 13.3 cfs, or 8.6 million gallons per day (MGD). This measure is able to meet a significant portion of the unmet future M&I peak season demand throughout the basin, and meets the criteria of completeness, effectiveness, efficiency, and acceptability. It is retained for further analysis. 4.2.1.7 Interconnections with Other Systems This measure involves the use system interties between and among neighboring M&I systems to consolidate supply, and to supply water among inter-linked systems. Implementation of this measure requires the utilization of existing M&I system interties, and the development of intergovernmental agreements. Numerous interties and regional suppliers exist within the Willamette River basin. Regional water systems also are prevalent throughout the basin (e.g., Clackamas River Water, Joint Water Commission, South Fork Water Board, etc.). In addition, several M&I systems are pursuing additional interties and regionalization agreements in an effort to access water during peak demand periods. This measure has been used within the basin for decades and continues to be explored as an option for the assurance of future water supplies. This measure is anticipated to meet a portion of the unmet future peak season demand throughout the basin, and meets the criteria of completeness, effectiveness, efficiency and acceptability. It is retained for further analysis. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 69 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 4.2.2 Summary of Measures Screening Table 4-1 shows the measures considered for this study and the results of initial screening. Table 4-1 Summary of M&I Water Supply Measures Screening Analysis Considered in Alternatives Measure 4.3 1 Conservation No 2 Allocation of WVP conservation storage for M&I use 3 Expansion of existing or new surface water diversions 4 Expansion of groundwater withdrawals 5 Above-ground storage of off-peak season water 6 Aquifer storage and recovery Yes 7 Interconnections with other systems Yes Yes No Yes No Final Array of Alternatives Based on the analysis described above, four measures were carried forward into formulation of alternative plans to meet peak season M&I needs. The measures were combined to create plans that were evaluated in order to identify a proposed action. Three alternatives (in addition to the No Action Alternative) emerge when non-federal measures are combined with the federal measure of reallocating WVP conservation storage, as summarized in Table 4-2 and discussed below. Table 4-2 Final Array of Alternatives Studied in Detail Alternative No Action 1 2 3 Features 1. Meet M&I water supply needs through non-federal measures 2. Reclamation continues to issue AI contracts up to, and exceeding 95,000 acre-feet 3. Reallocation of WVP conservation storage not made (all remains Joint Use) WVP stored water released for F&W not protected by instream water rights 1. No allocation of WVP conservation storage made for M&I Meet M&I water supply needs through non-federal measures 2. Reclamation continues to issue AI contracts up to, and exceeding 95,000 acre-feet 3. Allocation of WVP conservation storage made for F&W WVP stored water released for F&W protected by instream water rights 1. Meet M&I water supply needs through non-federal measures 2. M&I access to WVP stored water for deficits remaining after non-federal measures 3. Reclamation continues to issue AI contracts up to, and exceeding 95,000 acre-feet 4. Allocation of WVP conservation storage made for F&W WVP stored water released for F&W protected by instream water rights 1. Allocation of WVP conservation storage made for M&I access to WVP stored water 2. Reclamation continues to issue AI contracts up to, and exceeding 95,000 acre-feet 3. Allocation of WVP conservation storage made for all project purposes WVP stored water released for F&W protected by instream water rights Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 70 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 4.3.1.1 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative there would be no reallocation of WVP conservation storage, and M&I entities (M&I systems and SSI facilities) would not be able to access WVP stored water. Reclamation would continue to issue irrigation water contracts up to, and eventually exceeding, 95,000 acre-feet per year. WVP stored water would continue to be released for ESAlisted fish, as described in the 2008 NMFS BiOp, though the WVP stored water releases for ESA-listed fish would not be protected by instream water rights. 4.3.1.2 Alternative 1 Meet M&I Water Supply Needs through Non-Federal Measures Under this Alternative 1, the feasibility of applying non-federal measures (Measures 4, 6, and 7 from Table 4-1) were evaluated for the study area’s M&I peak season supply needs. Because use of WVP stored water for M&I purposes has not been an option, the M&I systems and SSI facilities have not been able to rely on stored water in their plans to meet future peak season water supply needs. OAR 690-086-0170(5) requires an analysis of alternative sources to meet future water demand, and these sources have not included WVP stored water. WVP stored water would continue to be available for AI, though an allocation of WVP conservation storage would have been made for F&W. As such, WVP stored water released for the benefit of ESA-listed fish would be protected by instream water rights. 4.3.1.3 Alternative 2 Meet M&I Water Supply Needs through a Combination of Non-Federal Measures and WVP Stored Water While it is expected that anticipated M&I demand deficits and redundancy needs could be addressed through the measures included under Alternative 1 to some degree, Alternative 2 is in place to ensure that the study goals would be achieved in the event that demand deficits remain after the full analysis of Alternative 1. Under this alternative, any shortfall of future M&I peak season demand remaining after full consideration of Alternative 1 would be addressed through an allocation of WVP conservation storage for M&I. Identical to Alternative 1, WVP stored water would continue to be available for AI, and an allocation of WVP conservation storage would have been made for F&W. As such, WVP stored water released for the benefit of ESAlisted fish would be protected by instream water rights. 4.3.1.4 Alternative 3 Meet M&I Water Supply Needs through WVP Stored Water Under this alternative, anticipated M&I peak season supply needs would be addressed through an allocation of WVP conservation storage. Identical to Alternatives 1 and 2, WVP stored water would be available for future irrigation demands, and WVP stored water would continue to be released for the benefit of ESA-listed fish, as described in the 2008 NMFS BiOp – those releases of stored water would be protected by instream water rights. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 71 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 4.4 Costs of Alternatives for M&I Peak Season Water Supply Costs of the measures that comprise Alternatives 1 through 347 are evaluated below, and are based on the assumption that existing M&I infrastructure would minimize the cost of adapting existing infrastructure to an alternative water source. It is also assumed that existing infrastructure would be utilized to the extent possible. Total peak season M&I water needs for the year 2070 is 159,750 acre-feet48. Fifty-one of the 90 M&I systems are projected to have a peak season water supply deficit, which has an aggregate total of 103,200 acre-feet in planning year 2070. In addition to these supply deficit needs, year 2070 peak season redundancy needs of 38,600 acre-feet and year 2070 SSI peak season supply deficits of 17,950 acre-feet are included in the 159,750 acre-feet total. 4.4.1 Application of Non-Federal Measures for M&I Peak Season Supply The costs and feasibility of applying non-federal measures for M&I peak season supply needs were evaluated for the study area M&I systems (Measures 4, 6, and 7). A combination of these non -federal measures is anticipated to be used throughout the basin, and selection of measures anticipated to be implemented is based on the assumptions listed below.  Access to water supplied through existing interconnections with other M&I suppliers with excess capacity (Measure 7) would be the preferred non-federal measure, if feasible; and  Use of ASR to store off-peak season water (Measure 6) would be preferred over the expansion of groundwater withdrawals (Measure 4). While the costs of constructing ASR facilities exceed the costs of constructing additional groundwater wells, the overall lack of groundwater availability throughout the basin would favor ASR over the expansion of groundwater withdrawals. It is recognized that there is uncertainty over whether or not universal implementation of either Measure 4 or Measure 6 would provide a reliable source of peak season supply. However, storing water during the off-peak season in ASR wells is likely to yield more basin-wide success than relying on expanded groundwater withdrawals to meet future M&I peak season needs. For this reason, Measure 4, expansion of groundwater wells, was eliminated from further consideration. 4.4.1.1 M&I Aquifer Storage and Recovery (Measure 6) Total 2070 M&I system peak season supply deficits remaining after exhausting the purchase of interconnected water supply is 62,670 acre-feet. ASR unit costs for ASR are based on an indexed cost from a 2009 system ASR facility constructed by a study area M&I system. The unit cost includes costs for construction, property acquisition, and contingencies – costs updated to 2017 are approximately $3,570,000 per MGD of capacity. This unit capital cost was applied individually to the MGD peak season deficits remaining for each M&I system after evaluation of the interconnection measure. For the unmet peak season demand of 62,670 acre-feet in year 2070 across the 28 systems, capital costs of this measure equal approximately $597,104,000. 47 While not analyzed separately in this section, the No Action Alternative is identical to Alternative 1 with respect to the measures available to M&I systems and SSI facilities in meeting peak season demands. 48 See Tables 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, and 3-10 above for demand figures cited in this paragraph. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 72 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study SSI peak season supply deficits of 17,950 acre-feet in the year 2070 also were addressed through implementation of this measure at an aggregate capital cost of $171,156,000. In total, M&I system and SSI peak season supply deficits carry an ASR capital cost of $768,260,000. Peak season system redundancy needs for all M&I systems in the study are expected to total 38,600 acre-feet by the year 2070. Because all of the excess peak season capacity available from interconnected systems would be exhausted to satisfy 2070 a portion of peak season demand deficits, the most viable option for the 42 systems with a need for system redundancy was assumed to be achieved through ASR. ASR unit capital costs for system redundancy are based on the same unit costs as described above for M&I system peak season supply deficits ($3,570,000 per MGD of capacity). For the redundant supply demand of 38,600 acre-feet by the year 2070 across the 42 systems, total capital costs of this measure equals $368,095,000. 4.4.1.2 M&I Interconnected Supply (Measure 7) Fifty-one M&I systems are projected to show a peak season water supply deficit in the year 2070. Twenty-four of these systems maintain physical interconnections with other M&I systems in the basin, and these 24 M&I systems account for 95,200 acre-feet of the 2070 M&I system supply deficit of 103,200 acre-feet (over 92 percent of the total). Within the basin, 11 systems with excess peak season supply in the year 2070 are linked to the 24 systems. Year 2070 excess peak season supply available in the aggregate from the 11 systems amounts to approximately 40,530 acre-feet. Under the interconnection supply measure, a total of 40,530 acre-feet of alternative supply would be achieved through peak season wholesale water supply to M&I systems with peak season supply deficits in the year 2070. The annual cost of the interconnected supply measure assumes that the wholesale water purchase cost would be at a uniform rate of $1.05 per 100 cubic feet of water49, which equates to a peak season cost of $457.38 per acre-foot. At the 2070 level of M&I demand deficits that could be met through this measure, the annual total peak season cost for 2070 is estimated at $18,537,700. Implementation of this measure for M&I systems with interconnections leaves 62,670 acre-feet (103,200-40,530) of unmet 2070 M&I system peak season supply deficits that need to be met from an additional peak season water supply measure. 4.4.2 Application of the Federal Measure The costs and feasibility of applying Measure 2 (Allocation of WVP Conservation Storage for M&I Use) is evaluated below. Total M&I peak season demand for WVP stored water in year 2070 amounts to 159,750 acrefeet of water. Peak season M&I system deficits are expected to be 103,200 acre-feet, peak season M&I system redundant supply needs are estimated at 38,600 acre-feet, and SSI peak season deficits are expected to total 17,950 acre-feet. Under this measure, 159,750 acre-feet of peak season demand would be met through an allocation of WVP conservation storage for M&I. The costs involved in implementation of this measure include: payment to the U.S. Treasury for 49 The current average price charged by major M&I systems for wholesale water in the basin. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 73 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study the cost of storage, and capital costs of intake pipelines to a point of access, new water intakes at the points of diversion, and pump stations. 4.4.2.1 2070 Peak Season Supply Deficits for M&I Systems and SSI The first quarter FY18 updated cost of storage for the WVP is equal to a capital cost of $2,615.57 per acre-foot50. The total M&I peak demand deficit in the year 2070 is equal to 103,200 acre-feet, which yields a storage cost of $269,926,900. SSI peak season demand deficits of 17,950 yields a storage cost of $46,949,500 – bringing the total storage cost for M&I system and SSI peak season deficits to $316,876,400. Unit costs of intake pipelines51 range from $94.79 per linear foot for a 7 MGD pipeline to $259.51 per linear foot for a 40 MGD pipeline. Pipeline distances to the nearest access point52 were estimated in GIS for each of the 51 M&I systems with a peak season supply deficit in year 2070 (an average of these distances was used for SSI facilities). Unit costs of the intake pipelines were applied to the distances, which yielded a total capital cost of $139,592,000. Unit costs of new intakes and pump stations were estimated at $12,500 per MGD, and costs for new pump stations were estimated at $132,500 per MGD. The unit costs were applied to the year 2070 peak season MGD requirements of the 51 M&I systems and SSI facilities for a total capital cost of $49,900,000. 4.4.2.2 2070 M&I System Redundancy Unit costs involved in implementation of this measure are identical to those used in the analysis of M&I 2070 system deficits, above. The total M&I redundant demand in the year 2070 is equal to 38,600 acre-feet, which yields storage costs of $100,961,000. Unit costs of intake pipelines were applied to the distances for each of the 42 systems with redundancy needs, which yielded a total capital cost of $78,787,200. Capital costs for new intakes and pump stations were estimated at $14,950,200. 4.4.2.3 Operation and Maintenance Cost Share An annual Operation and Maintenance (O&M) cost is based on the O&M expense for the WVP from the federal fiscal year most recently ended. FY17 O&M costs for the WVP total roughly $14,119,000. The M&I demand for 159,750 acre-feet of WVP stored water represents 10.05 percent of the 1,590,000 acre-feet of conservation storage available. At the 10.05 percent share level, M&I would be responsible for $1,418,600 in annual O&M charges, though the actual O&M cost charged would be recalculated each year based on the previous year’s O&M cost. 50 See Section 7, Table 7-3 below. 51 Unit costs for intake pipelines, intakes, and pump stations were derived from the 2008 Yamhill County Water Supply Analysis, and updated to 2017 price levels. 52 For M&I systems with existing surface water rights to the Willamette River or tributaries on which a WVP reservoir is located, this distance is equal to zero. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 74 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 4.5 Comparison of Alternatives Initial capital costs and annual costs of the measures are assembled in this section for Alternatives 1 through 3. Cost data are provided for each alternative, and the section concludes with a comparative summary of these data for the alternatives. 4.5.1 Alternative 1: Meet M&I Water Supply Needs through Non-Federal Measures Alternative 1 is identical to the No Action Alternative with respect to the measures available for future M&I peak season water supply - M&I suppliers would not be able to access WVP stored water. Under Alternative 1, total M&I peak season demands of 159,750 acre-feet would be met through non-federal Measures 6 and 7. Measure 6, ASR, would address 119,220 acre-feet of supply deficits, redundancy needs, and SSI demands. Measure 7, interconnected supply, would address 40,530 acre-feet of supply deficits. Table 4-4 provides a summary of initial capital and annualized costs for Alternative 1. As shown on the table, Alternative 1 is associated with total initial capital costs of $1,136,355,000, and total annual costs53 of $75,655,900. Table 4-4 Alternative 1 Cost Summary INITIAL CAPITAL COSTS Cost ($) Aquifer Storage and Recovery M&I systems and SSI deficits, Measure 6 80,620 acre-feet of demand met through measure 768,260,000 Aquifer Storage and Recovery (38,600 acre-feet) M&I systems redundancy, Measure 6 38,600 acre-feet of demand met through measure 368,095,000 TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COSTS 1,136,355,000 ANNUAL COSTS Annualized Capital Costs 56,118,200 Interconnection Wholesale Water Purchase M&I systems deficits, Measure 7 40,530 acre-feet of demand met through measure 18,537,700 TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS (159,750 acre-feet) 74,655,900 4.5.2 Alternative 2: Meet M&I Water Supply Needs through a Combination of NonFederal Measures and Willamette Valley Project Reservoir Storage Alternative 2 is in place to ensure that study goals would be achieved in the event that M&I demand needs remain after the full analysis of Alternative 1. Under this alternative, any shortfall 53 Initial capital costs annualized using the FY 2018 discount rate of 2.75 percent over a 30 year period of amortization Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 75 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study of future M&I peak season needs remaining after full consideration of Alternative 1 would be addressed through an allocation of WVP conservation storage for M&I. Following the full evaluation of Alternative 1 for M&I peak season needs, no deficits remained that would need to be addressed through an allocation of WVP conservation storage for M&I. While the costs of the non-federal measures (Measures 6 and 7) are considerably greater than the cost of the federal measure in the aggregate, M&I peak season water supply needs could be met through non-federal measures. Given that there would be no difference in cost between Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, Alternative 2 was eliminated from further consideration. 4.5.3 Alternative 3: Meet M&I Water Supply Needs through WVP Stored Water Alterative 3 uses Measure 2, Allocation of WVP Conservation Storage for M&I Use, to address 159,750 acre-feet of anticipated M&I peak season water supply demands in year 2070. Table 45 provides a summary of initial capital and annualized costs for Alternative 3. As shown on the table, Alternative 3 has total initial capital costs of $622,279,600 and total annual costs54 of $32,149,500. Table 4-5 Alternative 3 Cost Summary INITIAL CAPITAL COSTS Cost ($) WVP Storage Allocation Capital Costs M&I systems and SSI deficits, Measure 2 121,150 acre-feet of demand met through measure 316,876,400 WVP Storage Allocation Capital Costs M&I systems redundancy, Measure 2 38,600 acre-feet of demand met through measure 100,961,000 Conveyance to Access WVP (M&I systems and SSI deficits, Measure 2) 139,592,000 Intakes and pump stations to Access WVP (M&I systems and SSI deficits, Measure 2) 49,900,000 Intakes and Pump Stations to Access WVP (M&I systems redundancy, Measure 2) 14,950,200 TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COSTS 622,279,600 ANNUAL COSTS Annualized Capital Costs WVP O&M Cost Share (based on 159,750 acre-feet, Measure 2) TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS (159,750 acre-feet) 30,730,900 1,418,600 32,149,500 54 Initial capital costs annualized using the FY 2018 discount rate of 2.75 percent over a 30 year period of amortization Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 76 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 4.5.4 Comparison of Alternatives 1 and 3 Initial capital costs and annual costs for Alternatives 1 and 3 are shown on Table 4-6. The table shows that Alternative 3 is the least-cost alternative in terms of both initial capital costs, and annual costs. Table 4-6 Costs Comparison of Alternatives INITIAL CAPITAL COSTS Alternative 1 ($) Aquifer Storage and Recovery M&I systems and SSI deficits, Measure 6 80,620 acre-feet of demand met through measure 768,260,000 Aquifer Storage and Recovery (38,600 acre-feet) M&I systems redundancy, Measure 6 38,600 acre-feet of demand met through measure 368,095,000 Alternative 3 ($) WVP Storage Allocation Capital Costs M&I systems and SSI deficits, Measure 2 121,150 acre-feet of demand met through measure 316,876,400 WVP Storage Allocation Capital Costs M&I systems redundancy, Measure 2 38,600 acre-feet of demand met through measure 100,961,000 Conveyance & Intakes to Access WVP (M&I systems and SSI deficits, Measure 2) Intakes and pump stations to Access WVP (M&I systems and SSI deficits, Measure 2) Conveyance & Intakes to Access WVP (M&I systems redundancy, Measure 2) TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COSTS 139,592,000 49,900,000 14,950,200 1,136,355,000 622,279,600 Annualized Capital Cost 56,118,200 30,760,900 Interconnection Wholesale Water Purchase M&I systems deficits, Measure 7 40,530 acre-feet of demand met through measure 18,537,700 ANNUAL COSTS M&I WVP O&M Cost Share (based on 159,750 acre-feet, Measure 2) TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS 1,418,600 74,655,900 32,149,500 Given the least cost advantages of Alternative 3 over Alternative 1, and because Alternative 3 would help to fulfill the intent of language included House Doc. 531, Volume 5. Paragraph 198 (“Ample storage in individual reservoirs, therefore, would be available at relatively low cost for domestic use when current facilities can no longer meet the demand.”), Alternative 3 was selected as the Proposed Action. Its further development into a tentatively selected plan is documented in the following section. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 77 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 5 Proposed Action Development into the Tentatively Selected Plan This section documents the refinement of the Proposed Action (Alternative 3) into a Tentatively Selected Plan (TSP). The TSP would include a conservation storage reallocation and water management guidelines for the use of the reallocated conservation storage over the full range of water year types55. Specifically, the development process involves the selection of an alternative WVP conservation storage reallocation volume for each of the water use categories described in Section 3: F&W; M&I; and AI. The TSP development process also involves the selection of alternative water management guidelines for years when WVP stored water would be insufficient to meet all of the reallocated uses. 5.1 Planning Objectives, Constraints and Considerations The following criteria were established to develop and evaluate the combinations of conservation storage reallocation and water management alternatives, and arrive at the TSP: Criterion 1: Maintain flood risk management capabilities Criterion 2: Minimize costs for M&I water supply Criterion 3: Meet BiOp flow objectives to the maximum extent possible Criterion 4: Minimize impacts to reservoir and riverine recreation Criterion 5: Minimize impacts to hydropower production capabilities Criterion 6: Maintain technical feasibility and operational flexibility Criterion 7: Adaptable to changing demands and climate conditions Criterion 8: Meet demands at least 80 percent of the time Collectively, the criteria guide the overall formulation of alternatives for reallocation and water management. Individually, the criteria can be separated into objectives, constraints, and other considerations, as briefly described below. 5.1.1 Planning Objectives The planning objectives for development of the proposed action into a TSP are to: 1. Provide an allocation of WVP conservation storage to meet forecasted M&I peak season needs as defined in Section 3.2; 2. Provide an allocation of WVP conservation storage to meet forecasted AI peak season needs as defined in Section 3.3; and 3. Provide an allocation of WVP conservation storage that could be used to supplement flows in reaches of the Willamette River and tributaries in order to meet the mainstem and tributary flow objectives of RPA 2.9 as defined in Section 3.1. 55 See Section 3.1 above for a discussion of water-year types. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 78 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 5.1.2 Planning Constraints Four constraints are imposed on development of the proposed action into a TSP: 1. Flood risk management will continue without change. Changes to the conservation or flood storage seasons, or the flood control, power, conservation, and full pool elevations specified by each reservoir’s water control diagram will be neither considered nor evaluated; 2. Any reallocation of WVP conservation storage will fit within the existing WVP rulecurves; 3. Any reallocation of WVP conservation storage will be limited to the existing 1,590,000 acre-feet of conservation storage. Expansion of WVP conservation storage through reallocation of WVP flood storage or WVP power storage will neither be considered nor evaluated; and 4. Construction or modification of structural facilities at WVP dams to increase conservation storage will neither be considered nor evaluated. 5.1.3 Additional Planning Considerations Four planning considerations in addition to the objectives and constraints listed above are: 1. One hundred percent reliability of WVP stored water is not feasible for all water year types and all water use categories. Conservation storage at WVP reservoirs is emptied annually for flood storage, and full refill of conservation storage is not guaranteed. Agreements for WVP stored water would be issued for less than 100 percent reliability; 2. Operational flexibility will be maintained to achieve mainstem and tributary flow objectives to the maximum extent possible in support of ESA-listed fish; 3. Negative impacts to WVP reservoir and riverine recreation will be minimized; and 4. Negative impacts to WVP hydropower production will be minimized. 5.2 Conservation Storage Reallocation Alternatives The development of reallocation alternatives for WVP conservation storage begins with the sum of peak demands for WVP stored water from each of the three use categories. The sum of peak storage demands equals 2,077,400 acre-feet, as described below and shown in Table 5-1. 5.2.1 Fish & Wildlife Demand The F&W peak demand for WVP stored water is the maximum amount of water that would be released from WVP stored water plus the shortage required to be released from WVP stored water needed to supplement instream flows to meet all tributary and mainstem minimum flow objectives defined in the BiOp. F&W peak demand for WVP stored water is 1,590,00056 acrefeet. This value is based on the estimated volume of WVP stored water needed to meet BiOp mainstem and tributary flow objectives 100 percent of the time, with a maximum value limited to 56 See Section 3.1 Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 79 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study the volume of WVP conservation storage (1,590,000 acre-feet). F&W peak demand is fully documented in FR/EA Appendix C (Calculation of Water Volumes Required to Meet Willamette BiOp Minimum Flows). 5.2.2 Municipal & Industrial 2070 Peak Season Demand M&I peak season demand for WVP stored water of 159,750 acre-feet is comprised of three elements: 57 1. M&I system peak season demand of 103,200 acre-feet for the year 2070, which represents aggregate M&I system peak season supply deficits. 2. M&I system peak season redundant supply demand of 38,600 acre-feet for the year 2070, which represents storage demand for supply backup purposes. 3. New SSI peak season demand at 17,950 acre-feet in the year 2070. 5.2.3 Agricultural Irrigation Peak Demand AI peak season demand for WVP stored water of 327,650 acre-feet is comprised of three elements: 58 1. Increase in demand for AI storage at 184,200 acre-feet, which is based on irrigated acreage increases from the year 2020 through the year 2070 at a 2.5 acre-feet per acre irrigation rate. 2. At-risk live flow water rights of 62,050 acre-feet, which is based on water rights currently being drawn on streams with MPSFs. It is expected that, outside of increases in AI storage demand, 62,050 acre-feet of storage would be requested when MPSFs are converted to instream water rights. 3. Reclamation storage contracts projected to be in place at year 2020, which totals 81,400 acre-feet. Table 5-1 Peak Season Demands for WVP Stored Water M&I and AI Stated at Year 2070 Levels Allocation Use Category Peak Demands (acre-feet) Portion of Total (percent) Fish & Wildlife 1,590,000 76.5 Municipal & Industrial * 159,750 7.7 Agricultural Irrigation * 327,650 15.8 2,077,400 100.0 Total * Peak demands presented for M&I and AI are peak season demands at 2070 levels. 57 Sources of the values are described in Section 3.2 above, and are summarized on Table 3-10. 58 Sources of the values are described in Section 3.3 above, and are summarized on Table 3-12. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 80 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study As shown in the table, the sum of the peak season demands (2,077,400 acre-feet) is greater than the amount of total WVP conservation storage available (1,590,000 acre-feet). Therefore, reallocation of all uses at the volumes shown in Table 5-1 is infeasible. Nevertheless, peak season demands were used to develop reallocation alternatives that would not exceed WVP conservation storage. Reallocation alternatives are as follows:  Reallocation Alternative A: Proportionate Reduction in Storage for all Uses  Reallocation Alternative B: Prioritize F&W Storage at Peak Level  Reallocation Alternative C: Prioritize M&I and AI Storage at 2070 Peak Levels  Reallocation Alternative D: Partial Allocation for all Uses with Joint Use Flexibility 5.2.4 Reallocation Alternative A: Proportional Reduction in Storage for all Uses Under Reallocation Alternative A, the allocation for each of the three use categories is reduced proportionately from those shown in Table 5-1. Since 1,590,000 acre-feet equals 76.5 percent of 2,077,400 acre-feet (total peak season demand for all three use categories), the reallocation of WVP conservation storage for each use category would be set at 76.5 percent of its peak demand (2070 peak season demand levels for M&I and AI). The resulting allocations by use category are shown below with all of the existing Joint Use allocation depleted.  F&W conservation storage allocation: 1,216,950 acre-feet  M&I conservation storage allocation: 122,250 acre-feet  AI conservation storage allocation: 250,800 acre-feet  Joint Use conservation storage allocation: 5.2.5 0 acre-feet Reallocation Alternative B: Prioritize Fish & Wildlife Storage at Peak Level Under Reallocation Alternative B, 1,508,600 acre-feet of WVP conservation storage would be allocated to F&W, with 81,400 acre-feet remaining for allocation to AI. While the F&W peak demand is the full 1,590,000 acre-feet of WVP conservation storage, an allocation of 81,400 acre-feet for AI must be made to accommodate the volume of Reclamation contracts expected to be in place by Year 2020. Without the AI allocation of 81,400 acre-feet, this reallocation alternative would be institutionally feasible – Reclamation would be prevented from fulfilling its expected contract obligations. Under this reallocation alternative there would be no allocation to M&I, as WVP conservation storage would be fully allocated to F&W and AI. The resulting allocations by use category are shown below with all of the existing Joint Use allocation depleted.  F&W conservation storage allocation: 1,508,600 acre-feet  M&I conservation storage allocation: 0 acre-feet  AI conservation storage allocation:  Joint Use conservation storage allocation: Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment 81,400 acre-feet 0 acre-feet Page 81 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 5.2.6 Reallocation Alternative C: Prioritize M&I and AI Storage at 2070 Peak Season Demand Levels Under Reallocation Alternative C, M&I would be allocated 159,750 acre-feet of WVP conservation storage, and 327,650 acre-feet of conservation storage would be allocated to AI. The remaining 1,102,600 acre-feet of conservation storage would be allocated to F&W. The resulting allocations by use category are shown below with all of the existing Joint Use allocation depleted.  F&W conservation storage allocation: 1,102,600 acre-feet  M&I conservation storage allocation: 159,750 acre-feet  AI conservation storage allocation: 327,650 acre-feet  Joint Use conservation storage allocation: 5.2.7 0 acre-feet Reallocation Alternative D: Reallocation at Reduced Peak Demand Levels with Joint Use Flexibility Reallocation Alternative D reflects an approach where a reduced volume of WVP conservation storage is allocated to each use category and a substantial share of conservation storage remains allocated to Joint Use. The allocations by use category for this alternative are shown below.  F&W conservation storage allocation: 962,800 acre-feet  M&I conservation storage allocation: 73,300 acre-feet  AI conservation storage allocation: 253,950 acre-feet  Joint Use conservation storage allocation: 299,950 acre-feet 5.2.7.1 Discussion of Fish & Wildlife Allocation Volume Under this reallocation alternative, F&W would be allocated 962,800 acre-feet of WVP conservation storage – a reduction of 39.5 percent from the F&W peak volume of 1,590,000 acre-feet. The reduction to the F&W allocation under Reallocation Alternative D mirrors the reduction imposed on the combined M&I and AI peak demand volumes59 for this alternative. As discussed in 5.2.2 and 5.2.3 above, the sum of M&I and AI peak demands in Year 2070, excluding Year 2020 Reclamation contracts, is 406,000 acre-feet, and is comprised of 159,750 acre-feet for M&I and 246,25060 acre-feet for AI. The sum of reduced M&I and AI peak demand volumes for Reallocation Alternative D is 245,850 acre-feet, and is comprised of 73,300 acre-feet for M&I and 172,55061 acre-feet for AI. The total reduction for the combined M&I and AI demands from the combined peak demands equals 160,150 acre-feet (406,000 acre-feet – 160,150 acre-feet), a 39.5 percent reduction. 59 Excluding Reclamation contracts in the amount of 81,400 acre-feet expected to be in place at year 2020. 60 Addition of 81,400 acre-feet of Year 2020 Reclamation contracts brings the total to 327,650 acre-feet. 61 Excluding 81,400 acre-feet in Reclamation contracts expected to be in place by Year 2020. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 82 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 5.2.7.2 Discussion of Municipal & Industrial Allocation Volume The WVP conservation storage allocation for M&I is reduced from 2070 peak season demands to reflect the uncertainty that demands projected for the year 2070 would fully materialize when expected. Conservation storage allocated to M&I is the peak season M&I system demand of 62,400 acre-feet in the year 2050, and SSI demand of 10,900 acre-feet in the year 2050 (see Table 3-10 above). Under this allocation alternative, M&I redundant supply demands are not included in the dedicated allocation, though would be supplied from the Joint Use allocation of 299,950 acre-feet through surplus water agreements. Additionally, M&I redundant supply demands were not included in the Reallocation Alternative D because M&I systems would be responsible for repaying the cost of storage (see Section 7 below) for redundant supply whether or not WVP stored water is used. As such, a surplus water agreement tied to the Joint Use allocation would provide a more economically efficient option for meeting M&I redundant supply needs. 5.2.7.3 Discussion of Agricultural Irrigation Allocation Volume Similar to the M&I allocation, the WVP conservation storage allocation for AI is reduced from 2070 peak season demands (for increases in irrigated acreage only) in recognition of the inherent uncertainty of a forecast made 50 years into the future. The entire AI allocation of 253,950 acrefeet is comprised of:  110,500 acre-feet of increased irrigation demand due to permitted acreage increases expected by the year 205062;  At-risk live flow water rights of 62,050 acre-feet (unchanged from the volume provided in Section 5.2.3 above); and  Reclamation storage contracts in the amount of 81,400 acre-feet expected to be in place at year 2020 (unchanged from the volume provided in Section 5.2.3 above). 5.2.7.4 Discussion of Joint Use Allocation Volume As shown above, 299,950 acre-feet of WVP conservation storage would remain as Joint Use to provide future flexibility in meeting demands, as all use categories could claim a portion of Joint Use storage as their peak season demands for WVP stored water materialize. Further, Table 316 (see Section 3.4 above) shows climate change-induced impacts could result in an increase of over 260,000 acre-feet in peak season demand by the year 2050. With 299,950 acre-feet of WVP conservation storage remaining allocated to Joint Use, the Corps would be provided with additional flexibility in meeting demands in the event that demands become influenced by changing climate conditions. 5.2.8 Summary and Screening of Reallocation Alternatives A summary of reallocation Alternatives A through D is shown in tabular form on Table 5-2, and graphically on Figure 5-1. 62 See Section 3.3, Table 3-12. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 83 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Table 5-2 Summary of Reallocation Alternatives Allocation Use Category Peak Storage Demand Reallocation Alt A Reallocation Alt B Reallocation Alt C Reallocation Alt D Conservation Storage Allocation (acre-feet) Fish & Wildlife 1,590,000 1,216,950 1,508,600 1,102,600 962,800 Municipal & Industrial 159,750 122,250 0 159,750 73,300 Agricultural Irrigation 327,650 250,800 81,400 327,650 253,950 0 0 0 0 299,950 2,077,400 1,590,000 1,590,000 1,590,000 1,590,000 Joint Use Total Percent of Allocation Fish & Wildlife 76.5 76.5 94.9 69.3 60.6 Municipal & Industrial 7.7 7.7 0.0 10.1 4.6 Agricultural Irrigation 15.8 15.8 5.1 20.6 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Joint Use Total Note that all of the reallocation alternatives comply with the planning constraints set out at the beginning of this section, and all reallocation alternatives achieve the planning objectives to differing degrees. While screening, it was determined that all of the reallocation alternatives would maintain flood risk management capabilities (Criterion 1). Reallocation alternative B would contribute nothing to the minimization of costs for M&I water supply (Criterion 2), though all of the remaining reallocation alternatives would provide WVP stored water for M&I use at a reduced cost from the No Action Alternative. The ability to meet BiOp flow objectives to the maximum extent possible (Criterion 3) played a primary role in the development of the reallocation alternatives. Each alternative ensures that WVP stored water would be available to meet this goal. It also was determined that impacts to recreation (Criterion 4) and hydropower production (Criterion 5) would not be measurably different among the reallocation alternatives, and that each of the reallocation alternatives would be technically feasible, though Reallocation Alternative D would provide the most operational flexibility (Criterion 6). The major difference among the reallocation alternatives lies in their ability to adapt to changes in long-term demand and changes in climate conditions that may further affect demand (Criterion 7). Reallocation Alternatives A, B and C were eliminated from further consideration since these alternatives do not provide flexibility to respond to changes in demand, to implement changes in WVP operations related to BiOp implementation, and to implement changes in WVP operations related to Dam Safety Interim Risk Reduction Measures. Reallocation Alternative D provides the most flexibility to adapt to changing future conditions and was carried forward as the selected reallocation alternative. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 84 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Figure 5-1 Graphic Comparison of Reallocation Alternatives A through D Reallocation Alternative A (acre-feet) F&W: M&I: AI: Joint Use: 1,216,950 122,250 250,800 0 Reallocation Alternative B (acre-feet) F&W: M&I: AI: Joint Use: 1,508,600 0 81,400 0 Reallocation Alternative C (acre-feet) F&W: M&I: AI: Joint Use: 1,102,600 159,750 327,650 0 Reallocation Alternative D (acre-feet) F&W: M&I: AI: Joint Use: 962,800 73,300 253,950 299,950 Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 85 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 5.3 Alternative Water Management Plans Implementation of the TSP also requires the development of water management plans for years when WVP conservation storage does not refill to 1,590,000 acre-feet. Management of WVP stored water during years when the reservoirs do not refill has a substantial effect on the reliability of the WVP meet authorized purposes. Three alternative water management plans were developed to describe how water shortages would be managed, and are outlined below.  Alternative Management Plan 1: All uses are reduced proportionally during years when WVP conservation storage does not fill to the volume of the reallocation for F&W, M&I and AI (1,290,050 acre-feet – total uses from Reallocation Alternative D in Table 5-2). Under this alternative management plan, releases of WVP stored water for the three dedicated uses would be reduced only when the Joint Use portion of conservation storage does not refill. WVP stored water made available to each use category would be reduced by its proportional share, relative to contracted volumes, not allocated volumes.  Alternative Management Plan 2: Use of WVP stored water for F&W would be prioritized up to its allocated amount. Any remaining WVP stored water would be divided between M&I and AI on a basis proportionate to contracted volumes, not allocated volumes.  Alternative Management Plan 3: Use of WVP stored water for M&I and AI would be prioritized, up to the contracted amounts. Any remaining WVP stored water would be provided to F&W. The alternative water management plans were combined with Reallocation Alternative D and further screened to evaluate how well demands could be met, especially during dry years. Table 5-3 provides the screening results of whether the modeled implementation alternatives met demands of F&W, AI, and M&I in more than or less than 80 percent of the years simulated. Table 5-3 Expected Frequencies for Meeting Use Category Demands Implementation Alternative F&W BiOp Flow Objectives M&I Peak Season Demands AI Peak Season Demands Reallocation Alternative D Mgmt Plan 1 Fully met in more than 80% of years simulated. Fully met in more than 80% of years simulated. Fully met in more than 80% of years simulated. Reallocation Alternative D Mgmt Plan 2 Fully met in more than 80% of years simulated. Fully met in less than 80% of years simulated and results in years where no stored water is available for use. Fully met in less than 80% of years simulated and results in years where no stored water is available for use. Reallocation Alternative D Mgmt Plan 3 Fully met in less than 80% of years simulated and results in years where no stored water is available for use. Fully met in more than 80% of years simulated. Fully met in more than 80% of years simulated. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 86 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Only one of the alternative management plans, Management Plan 1, enables the Corps to manage the WVP in order to provide stored water for all use categories across the full range of water year types. The other two alternative management plans result in years where one or more use categories would not have access to WVP stored water. In addition, the combination of Reallocation Alternative D and Alternative Management Plan 1 results in allocations being met approximately 80 percent of the time (Screening Criterion 8 in Section 5.1). 5.4 Tentatively Selected Plan The TSP is Alternative 3D1, which includes allocations for specific uses, Reallocation Alternative D, as well as guidelines for managing WVP stored water releases when conservation storage does not fill to 1,590,000 acre-feet, which is Alternative Management Plan 1. Impacts to the authorized purposes associated with the TSP are evaluated in detail throughout the remaining sections of this report. The evaluations show that differences between the No Action Alternative and the TSP are minimal in most years, with the greatest differences occurring the extremely dry years. 5.4.1 TSP Conservation Storage Allocations Under the reallocation alternative selected to accompany the TSP (Reallocation Alternative D), WVP conservation storage allocations by use category are as follows:  F&W conservation storage allocation: 962,800 acre-feet  M&I conservation storage allocation: 73,300 acre-feet  AI conservation storage allocation: 253,950 acre-feet  Joint Use conservation storage allocation: 299,950 acre-feet Derivation of these volumes is provided in Section 5.2.7 above. Conservation storage allocated for Joint Use is 299,950 acre-feet. This portion of conservation storage is reserved to address uncertainty over whether demands for WVP stored water would materialize in the 2050 to 2070 timeframe as projected, to adjust to changing water supply needs as a result of climate change, and to provide flexibility in making revised reservoir operations that may be required in the future. Until under contract, use-specific allocations of conservation storage could be used for other authorized purposes. In lower water years when reservoirs do not refill, the stored water reductions would be first applied to the water stored in the Joint Use allocation. 5.4.2 TSP Adaptive Management Plan The TSP includes an adaptive water management plan. Adaptive management of flows involves making adjustments to reservoir operations and flow releases based on current and forecasted hydrologic conditions and will distribute the risk of insufficient water quantities among all authorized project purposes. In years of short water supply, Joint Use storage is made unavailable first. If the shortage in refill is greater than the Joint Use conservation storage allocation, then all water use categories will share the available water in the same proportions of their allocations to full refill. For example, the AI conservation storage allocation under Reallocation Alternative D represents approximately 16 percent of the total conservation storage, so in low water years, AI would receive 16 percent of the available stored water. The Corps Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 87 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study recommends this approach when the full supply of WVP conservation storage is not available, so the maximum possible benefits for authorized uses could be achieved. Adaptive management of flows also applies to the Joint Use space in higher water years when all conservation storage allocations could be met, as the stored water in the Joint Use allocation would be released to balance the multipurpose needs. Allocated storage that is not under contract would be treated as Joint Use on an annual basis. Release of this water would be managed to provide the most beneficial overall regulation. F&W, M&I and AI uses have the highest priority on the 1,590,000 acre-feet of WVP conservation storage between minimum and maximum conservation pool elevations. WVP stored water released for other uses are water quality and power operation. Reservoir and riverine recreation have no priority on WVP stored water; however, as much consideration as possible will be extended without adversely affecting the other authorized purposes. In most instances, WVP stored water released for a specific purpose would also benefit other interests. Insofar as possible, regulation of the WVP considers the requirements of the non-consumptive interests as well as F&W, AI, and M&I so that preferential treatment would not be accorded any particular interest to the exclusion of the needs of the others. The basic policy will be to provide the most beneficial overall regulation of the WVP that is consistent with the water control plan and federal and state water laws. During the conservation release season, demand for WVP stored water will vary from year to year depending upon the natural streamflow and the amount of stored water in the reservoirs. Water available for each use in any given year is dependent upon the system-wide WVP conservation storage accumulated during the refill period. Therefore, a fixed schedule for releasing WVP stored water is not practical. To implement the TSP on an annual basis, a draft plan for reservoir operations for the upcoming year will continue to be presented annually with state and federal agencies, local groups and the public. The draft plan used currently is called the “Willamette Basin Project Conservation Release Season Operating Plan, Water Year 20XX, where “XX” is the water year. This plan is referred to as the “annual Conservation Plan”, or Conservation Plan.” The plan identifies flow and storage needs for each WVP tributary and reservoir based on the anticipated total system storage in mid-May and from the April forecast and will be finalized in June of each year. The objective is to develop a collaborative plan for the release of WVP stored water which accommodates a broad range of beneficial uses, once anticipated precipitation and runoff patterns are analyzed and the release of stored water from the conservation pool can be scheduled. The plan provides detailed individual project and system flow objectives, project operating drawdown priorities, minimum and maximum flows, and recommends flow shaping operations to balance the multipurpose needs given the availability of water and is referred to during actual operations. The general operational goal is to ensure that each reservoir holds water stored above its minimum conservation pool elevation through October 31 while meeting all project purposes. The Conservation Plan is reviewed periodically throughout the conservation release season and is revised, if necessary, to meet changing conditions and water demands. During years with inadequate conservation storage when minimum flow requirements and contracted WVP stored water cannot be met in full, all authorized project purposes would be reduced so that each use category would receive the same percentage of the incomplete (i.e., less than 1,590,000 acrefeet) conservation storage as they would have received of the full WVP conservation storage pool. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 88 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study The existing interagency group, called the Flow Management Water Quality Team (FMWQT), will continue meeting regularly during the conservation release season to adaptively manage WVP stored water as basin conditions change or differ from those anticipated when the annual Conservation Plan was developed. The FMWQT is made up of representatives from federal, state and local agencies including the Corps, OWRD, ODFW, ODEQ, Oregon State Marine Board, NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, USFS, USBLM, and Reclamation. OWRD acts as the representative of the state of Oregon. During droughts, the Corps goal is to respond proactively so that drought-related impacts to authorized purposes can be minimized. Using the information discussed in the Drought Contingency Plan, the Corps may declare a WVP stored water shortage; coordination with other federal and state agencies will be initiated, and a modified release schedule will be developed. In this manner, WVP stored water shortages would be effectively moderated so that F&W, M&I, and AI receive an equal percent reduction from their allocated portion of WVP conservation storage. Once secondary water rights are issued for use of WVP stored water, OWRD will manage the water rights for use of the water following state water laws. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 89 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 6 Environmental Consequences 6.1 Determining Significance – Consideration of Context and Intensity NEPA and the CEQ’s Implementing Regulations require that NEPA documents identify the likely environmental effects of a proposed project and that the agency determine whether those impacts may be significant. The determination of whether an impact significantly affects the quality of the human environment must consider the context of an action and the intensity of the impacts (40 C.F.R. § 1508.27). The term context refers to the affected environment in which the proposed action would take place and is based on the specific location of the proposed action, taking into account the entire affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. The term intensity refers to the magnitude of change that would result if the proposed action were implemented. Determining whether an effect significantly affects the quality of the human environment also requires an examination of the relationship between context and intensity. In general, the more sensitive the context (i.e., the specific resource in the proposed action’s affected area), the less intense an impact needs to be in order for the action to be considered significant. Conversely, the less intense of an impact, the less scrutiny even sensitive resources need because of the overt inability of an action to effect change to the physical environment. The Corps is evaluating the reallocation of WVP conservation storage.63 Operation of WVP reservoirs has released stored water to meet flow objectives to benefit ESA-listed fish for more than 15 years and would continue under the TSP. From a practical standpoint, the growth in demand for AI and M&I water supply would materialize over the period of analysis, but these demands are not imminent. Over the period of analysis, the increase in demand, associated actions by others (irrigators and M&I systems), and changes to system operations to meet that demand would increase over time. Because the demand for stored water would accumulate over the period of analysis, Corps operational changes to meet those demands would similarly release an increasing amount of stored water over the period of analysis. The environmental effects from implementing the TSP would accumulate over time as entities took actions to gain access to stored water. In the near term (less than 10 years), implementing the TSP would be expected to result in few actions by those seeking to utilize stored water, with little change in system operations. The period of analysis used in the subsequent effects analysis is 50 years. Just as demands associated with M&I and irrigation beyond 30 years is highly speculative, so are projecting environmental effects beyond 30 years. Therefore, while the effects are considered to occur over a 50 year planning horizon, the demands and effects expected to occur between years 31 and 50, are the same effects occurring at year 30. 63 Storage allocation volumes under the TSP: F&W (962,800 acre-feet), M&I (73,000 acre-feet), AI (253,950 acrefeet), and Joint Use (299,950 acre-feet). Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 90 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 6.2 Scope of Environmental Effects Analysis The scope of the environmental effects analysis evaluates the reasonably foreseeable direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the TSP.64 For the TSP, the area of potential influence for the analysis of effects consists of:  The WVP’s reservoirs and the riverine reaches downstream of the reservoirs; and  The geographic area within which water supply could be utilized for AI and M&I use. From a practical standpoint, environmental effects could occur:  Within a footprint of disturbance where M&I water intakes and associated water distribution infrastructure (e.g., pumps, pipelines, etc.) would need to be constructed, operated, and maintained;  Where changes in daily releases from WVP reservoirs would result in changes to the water surface elevations of the reservoirs;  Where changes in releases from WVP reservoirs would result in changes to the flow and water surface elevations downstream of dams;  Where water supply intakes and depletions from riverine reaches could result in changes to flow and water surface elevations in downstream reaches; and  Where the availability of WVP stored water could change the patterns of water supply infrastructure and water distribution development in the basin. These represent the largest area of potential influence where effects might be observed. However, effects must be traceable through a chain-of-causation. Only effects that are caused by the action and reasonably foreseeable need be addressed in a NEPA analysis; impacts that are speculative and that depend on actions that are remote or hypothetical need not be considered. 6.3 Assumptions Regarding the Effects Analyses To assess the environmental consequences of implementing the TSP, this analysis evaluates the environmental consequences assuming WVP conservation storage allocated to AI, M&I, and F&W under the TSP would be fully utilized. As such, the allocations for AI and M&I would be assumed to be fully contracted and the demand being met as of the year 2050. The analyses assume that WVP conservation storage is fully contracted and assess the effects of meeting the future demand for WVP stored water. Importantly, the demand for WVP stored water is not imminent – the demand is assumed to materialize gradually over the 50-year period of analysis. 64 Direct effects are caused by the action and would occur at the same time and place (40 C.F.R. § 1508.8) (e.g., actions involving construction to increase the volume of water a dam stores). Indirect effects are caused by the action, but typically occur later in time or are farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable (40 C.F.R. § 1508.8). A cumulative impact is defined as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions.” (40 C.F.R. § 1508.7). Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 91 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Implementing the Corps decision to reallocate WVP conservation storage would not trigger any direct or immediate effects on the environment (i.e., effects caused by the reallocation decision, and occurring at the same time and place). 6.3.1 No change in Flood Risk Management Operations There are no changes to WVP Flood Risk Management operations associated with implementation of the TSP. The WVP reduces flood levels in the basin by temporarily detaining water during flood events, and then controlling the release of that detained water once flows downstream have subsided below flood or bankfull levels. This type of operation is governed by flow levels at various control points in the tributaries and on the mainstem, and additional releases for the TSP demands are well below any bankfull flow levels at all control points. In addition, the water control diagrams are not changed for any WVP reservoirs, which govern the time of year the reservoirs are evacuated to reserve space for the detention of inflows during flood events. The increased M&I demands for WVP stored water modeled in the TSP occur only for June through September. Any flood events that occur during this time period would still be accommodated by the same flood storage space available in the WVP as under current conditions. Because there are no changes in Flood Risk Management operations associated with implementing the TSP, the analysis does not evaluate changes in downstream flood risk potential or examine the effects to riparian resources that could be affected during flood events. 6.3.2 No Modifications to Dams to Increase Storage in WVP Reservoirs Implementing the TSP would not include any structural changes at any WVP reservoirs that would increase the volume of stored water (e.g., increasing the dam height). Implementation of the TSP would not require construction or result in any ground-disturbing actions by the Portland District to modify dams to increase the storage capacity. Because there are no structural changes at any of the reservoirs, there is no potential for implementation of the TSP to cause construction-related effects at WVP dams and there is no change to the dam safety status of the dams. 6.3.3 No New Water Supply Intakes on Corps Property Implementing the TSP would not require or involve new water supply intakes on Corps property for the use of WVP stored water. WVP reservoirs are upstream in the watershed relative to the centers of population, industry, and agriculture; the patterns of land use and municipal development are typically downstream of the reservoirs. As a result, the pattern of water supply users accessing surface water has been by constructing water supply intakes in the free-flowing reaches of the Willamette River’s mainstem and tributaries. The use of water from WVP reservoirs has not required construction of water supply intakes on Corps property. There are only three existing water supply users in the entire basin that have ever had water intake infrastructure on Corps property and each of them is in excess of 50 years old.65 65 During the original construction of the Hills Creek Dam and reservoir (completed in 1961), a municipal water supply pipe for the city of Oakridge, OR was installed but the water supply source is no longer used; during the original construction of the Foster Dam and reservoir (completed in 1968), a municipal water supply pipe for the Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 92 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study The existing pattern of water supply users gaining access to water supply from the free-flowing segments of the mainstem and tributaries (i.e., downstream of WVP reservoirs) would be expected to continue. Because of these established patterns of water supply infrastructure development, implementation of the TSP would not be expected to require the construction of new water supply intakes on Corps lands over the entire 50-year period of analysis. 6.3.4 No Reasonably Foreseeable Infrastructure Construction by Water Users There are expected to be no indirect construction-related effects (i.e., occurring later in time or removed in distance) in the near-term (less than 10 years). Near term growth in M&I peak season demand is expected to be met by entities withdrawing more water from existing infrastructure (intakes that currently draw from the Willamette River or its tributaries) and not requiring construction of new intakes for the use of WVP stored water. There are currently no proposed actions by public or private entities (e.g., M&I suppliers or agricultural irrigators) to construct water intake infrastructure that would not occur, “but for” the Corps’ decision to reallocate storage in the WVP. Longer-term (more than 10 years) projected growth in demand could eventually require infrastructure construction. However, in the absence of proposals for development from applicants, the construction effects of new intakes and distribution infrastructure would be too speculative to allow for meaningful analysis. The temporary and permanent environmental effects from ground disturbance, installation of conveyance pipe, and construction of associated support facilities for accessing water supply for irrigation or M&I are not assessed in detail within this document because the actions are not reasonably foreseeable and in the case of irrigation, are not caused by the TSP. Future construction of M&I or irrigation water supply infrastructure would likely be subject to Corps Regulatory Branch review for permitting under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403), which would also necessitate ODEQ Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The Corps would complete these evaluations when the specific plans for infrastructure are proposed. Future construction of infrastructure may also be subject to a number of other federal, state, and local environmental and land use permits. When future irrigation water service contracts are requested, Reclamation considers entering into each water service contract a discretionary decision that is individually subject to review under the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (USBOR, 2012). Reclamation evaluates the applicant’s proposals and determines whether extraordinary circumstances are present that could be environmentally significant (USBOR, 2017a). 6.3.4.1 Induced Growth Consideration of indirect effects also includes a consideration of growth-inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density, or the growth rate of an industry. However, effects must be traceable through a chain-of-causation and town of Sweet Home, OR was installed and is still in use; and at the Dexter Dam and reservoir, water supply is diverted from the reservoir to the Dexter Ponds/Willamette Hatchery. Originally constructed as two separate facilities, the Willamette Trout Hatchery (in 1922) and Oakridge Salmon Hatchery (in 1911), both facilities were combined in 1983 and operate today as Willamette Hatchery. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 93 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study the indirect effects should be addressed in relation to their proximity to the action. Only effects that are caused by the TSP and are reasonably foreseeable need be addressed in a NEPA analysis; impacts that are speculative, bear only an attenuated relationship to the TSP, could occur with or without the TSP, or that depend on actions that are remote or hypothetical need not be considered. While the reallocation of WVP conservation storage would allow the Corps to grant storage agreements and could lead to indirect effects from inducing growth or changing patterns of population growth or land use, there is currently no immediate unmet demand awaiting this action to be completed. In the absence of applications for Corps easements or new industrial growth trends66 in the Willamette River basin, construction and operation of new intake infrastructure is not reasonably foreseeable at this time. Evaluating the environmental consequences of theoretical new intakes or water distribution systems, without any applicants, would be too speculative to be meaningful. Therefore, the scope of analysis in this EA does not assess the effects of hypothetical new water supply intakes or water distribution systems; the estimates of theoretical, new infrastructure have been included in this analysis for the purpose of cost comparison, but the construction actions would be speculative and do not allow meaningful analysis. 6.3.4.2 Revisions to Water Control Manuals Implementation of the TSP and entering water supply agreements would require slight changes to individual WVP reservoir releases that are within the operational flexibility as described in the current Water Control Manuals. However, the reallocation of storage and slight operational changes in project operations would require amendments to the Water Control Manuals and the WVP’s Drought Contingency Plan (USACE, 2017). 6.3.5 Resources Considered but Not Carried Forward for Analysis In 2012, the CEQ published guidance on improving the process for preparing efficient and timely environmental reviews under NEPA (CEQ, 2012). NEPA and the CEQ Regulations implementing NEPA provide numerous techniques for preparing efficient and timely environmental reviews. Agencies are encouraged to concentrate on relevant environmental analysis in their NEPA documents, not to produce an encyclopedia of all applicable information (40 C.F.R. § 1500.4(b), 1502.2(a)); 40 C.F.R. § 1502.2(a) instructs that federal agency NEPA documents “shall be analytic rather than encyclopedic.” As such, the impacts should be discussed in proportion to their significance, meaning that there should only be a brief discussions of insignificant issues (40 C.F.R. § 1502.2(b); see also 40 C.F.R. § 1502.2(c)). Impacts should be discussed in proportion to their significance, and if the impacts are not deemed significant, there should be only enough discussion to show why more study is not warranted (40 C.F.R. § 1502.2(b)). As such, a number of resources/impacts that can typically be discussed at length within NEPA documents have been considered and dismissed from further analysis. 66 Over and above industrial trends already accounted for the demand analysis. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 94 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 6.3.5.1 Reservoir Resources Not Carried Forward for Analysis While there would be lower summer reservoir pool elevations during some years, the variability of pool levels under the TSP is within the range of pool elevation changes already experienced during the conservation season. In addition, every year, at the end of the conservation season (early fall), release rates from reservoirs are increased and the reservoir pools are lowered to empty the conservation pool in preparation for the winter flood season. The existing conditions of the environmental resources at the reservoirs that could be affected by changes in reservoir pool elevations are controlled by the annual cycle of filling and draining the conservation pool to provide storage for flood risk management operations. There would be marginal in-summer changes to reservoir pool elevations in some years, but because these slight and infrequent changes are within the range of existing operations, there would be no predictable changes to reservoir resources. Because of the overt inability of the TSP to effect change to the physical environment at the reservoirs that would be different from the range of conditions currently observed, effects to vegetation, aquatic habitats, wetlands, non ESA-listed fish and wildlife, aesthetics, cultural resources, and erosion have been eliminated from detailed consideration. 6.3.5.2 Riparian Resources Not Carried Forward for Analysis Predicted changes to water levels downstream of WVP reservoirs is the primary influencing factor in considering the potential for changes that could affect the environmental resources of the riparian corridor. The riparian corridor’s environmental resources that could be affected by changes in water elevations are at risk during periods of draw-down as part of flood risk management operations. Bank-full flows occur as part of flood risk reduction operations and generally do not occur during the conservation season. The proposed changes to releases from reservoirs would accumulate slowly over the period of analysis and even when fully realized (as of 2050), would result in changes to riverine flows that would be within the range of observed flows and associated water surface elevations under current conditions. Because of the overt inability of implementing the TSP to effect change to the physical environment that would be different from the range of conditions currently observed, effects to downstream riparian habitats/vegetation, aesthetics, wildlife (with the exception of listed species), and erosion have been eliminated from detailed consideration. 6.3.5.3 Additional Resources Not Carried Forward for Analysis Because implementation of the TSP does not require construction or ground disturbing actions by the Corps and does not have reasonably foreseeable construction actions by future users of WVP stored water, the following additional resources characteristically assessed because of construction actions have been eliminated from detailed consideration: air quality; geology; hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste; noise; occupational safety; soils; topography; traffic; race, poverty, and environmental justice. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 95 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 6.4 Climate and Climate Change As required by Engineering and Construction Bulletin No. 2016-2567, the goal of a qualitative analysis of potential climate change effects upon Corps hydrology-related projects and operations is to describe the observed present and possible future climate threats, vulnerabilities, and impacts relevant to the study goals or engineering designs (USACE, 2016h). Decisions involving the future supply of, and demand for, water in the Willamette River basin have the potential to be influenced by climate change over the period of analysis. Depending on the extent to which climate changes occur, there could be important shifts in the timing and form of precipitation and increases in ambient temperatures. Water demand for agriculture (due to future ambient temperature increases), supply constraints for municipal water use (due to future reduced peak season flow levels), and climate change-induced increases to M&I demand give rise to the vulnerability of the demand estimates used in the reallocation of WVP conservation storage. Uncertainties regarding the magnitude and timing of these climactic shifts require recognition of the potential threat to ESA-listed fish and their critical habitat. These threats to ESA-listed fish and their critical habitat may occur under the No Action Alternative and the Tentatively Selected Plan. In order to assess the potential climate change effects upon this study, the climate threats to the vulnerability of the peak season demands for WVP stored water are summarized in Table 3-16 (above) and in the following appendices:  FR/EA Appendix K (Discussion of Climate Change Impact on Future Regulation) Section 4;  FR/EA Appendix A (Municipal & Industrial Demand and Supply Analyses) Section 11; and  FR/EA Appendix B (Agricultural Irrigation Demand Analyses) Section 8. Climate change-induced increases in needs for WVP stored water to achieve BiOp flow objectives in Year 2050 are calculated to be 139,500 acre-feet by the year 2050 (see FR/EA Appendix K and Table 3-13 above). Climate change-induced increases in M&I demand for WVP stored water are calculated to be 28,650 acre-feet by the year 2050 (See FR/EA Appendix A and Table 3-14 above). Climate change-induced increases in AI demand for WVP stored water are calculated to be 93,400 acre-feet by the year 2050 (See FR/EA Appendix B and Table 3-15 above). At this time, there have been no recommendations reflecting changes to the BiOp flow objectives in response to anticipated climate change. Should such recommendations be formally made, the changes would be factored into planning for future water supply. Retaining a portion of WVP conservation storage in Joint Use under the TSP provides flexibility to the Corps in reducing vulnerabilities and responding to climate change-induced increases in the demand for WVP stored water. 67 Guidance for Incorporating Climate Change Impacts into Inland Hydrology in Civil Works Studies, Designs, and Projects Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 96 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 6.4.1 No Action Alternative Failing to implement the TSP would prevent the Corps from facilitating the conversion of a portion of WVP conservation storage to instream water rights as described in RPA 2.9. Without instream water rights in place, releases of an additional 139,500 acre-feet to meet BiOp flow objectives in the face of changing climate conditions would be available for use by existing water right holders (e.g., M&I and AI) as live flow per Oregon water law. 6.4.2 Tentatively Selected Plan The total additional stored water needed to accommodate climate change would be the climate change-induced increases in WVP stored water demand for AI, M&I, and F&W. Table 3-16 (above) provides a combined estimate of over 260,000 additional acre-feet of water that may be needed as a result of climate change-induced impacts on demand for WVP stored water by the year 2050. Under the TSP, any increase in WVP stored water releases made for the benefit of fish and wildlife would be protected by instream water rights. 6.5 Water Quality As described in Section 2.3, water quality in the upper, mid, and lower Willamette River showed a consistent overall improvement in water quality over a 30-year period despite a population increase of more than 1,000,000 people over the same time period. 6.5.1 Evaluation of Tributary Water Temperature Differences: No Action Alternative and TSP Potential differences water temperature differences between the No Action Alternative and the TSP were evaluated for the North Santiam River and the South Santiam River as part of an effort to support implementation of NMFS 2008 BiOp RPA (Buccola, in preparation). The analysis used CE-QUAL-W2 v3.1 models (Cole and Wells, 2015) of Detroit Lake (Sullivan et al., 2004; Buccola et al., 2015), the North Santiam River (Sullivan and Rounds, 2004) and South Santiam River (Bloom, 2016). The models were developed for the Willamette temperature Total Maximum Daily Load study and updated to a customized version of v4.0 obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This customized version of W2 includes a module that will track heat from a source, such as a dam. Temperature targets developed by a multi-agency team and currently used 2017 at Detroit Dam (USACE, 2017b) were applied. Two outlet configuration scenarios were modeled:  Existing specifies the current outlet configuration at Detroit Dam, which consists of a spillway (469.7 m), power penstocks (427.6 m), and upper regulating outlet (408.4 m). A minimum of 40 percent of the outflow is placed on the power penstock outlet, as is currently agreed upon by BPA and the Corps.  TempTower specifies the proposed outlet configuration with a future temperature tower and floating screen structure. This includes a series of six simulated outlets floating near the surface of the lake down to 3.87 m [12.7 ft] depth with a total combined flow ranging between 1000 and 4500 cfs. The analysis found that the TSP provided cooler temperatures than the No Action Alternative in the North and South Santiam rivers in July and August, and warmer temperatures in September and October, however these differences were small. Temperature differences between the TSP Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 97 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study and No Action Alternative were estimated to be less the 1.5°C, and usually less than 0.5°C. Little difference would be expected since flow differences in the four major tributaries affected by WVP operations are estimated to be minimal between the No Action Alternative and the TSP. There would also be minimal expected differences in water temperature changes in the McKenzie and Middle Fork Willamette rivers downstream of WVP dams given the minimal changes in flows estimated for the No Action Alternative and the TSP downstream of WVP dams in those tributaries. 6.5.2 Evaluation of Mainstem Willamette River Water Temperature Differences: No Action Alternative and TSP The USGS developed modeling tools to assess the effects of dams on streamflow and water temperature in the Willamette River and its major tributaries (USGS, 2010). The modeling tools utilize regression models to predict 7-day water temperatures at Salem/Keiser, Albany, and Willamette Falls based on streamflow and air temperature. For the current analyses, USGS utilized these models to evaluate the potential changes to water temperature comparing the No Action Alternative to the TSP as of 2050 (Rounds, S.A and Stratton-Garvin, L.E., in preparation). This work was also completed to support implementation of the NMFS 2008 BiOp RPA. Preliminary findings from the current modeling indicate: 1. Water temperatures increase going downstream from Albany to Salem to Willamette Falls; 2. Changes in streamflow differences between the No Action Alternative and the TSP are very small in April-May; 3. Changes in streamflow begin to be more noticeable in June-August and there would typically be more flow under the TSP than under the No Action Alternative; and 4. There would be essentially no predicted change between the No Action Alternative and the TSP in the first attainment of three consecutive days of water temperature at or above 15°C or 18°C. 6.5.3 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no Corps action to reallocate WVP conservation storage and no changes to current operations to provide WVP stored water to meet the Congressionally-authorized purpose of M&I water supply. Reclamation would continue to issue water service contracts for stored water from WVP reservoirs and the environmental effects from the diversion and use of WVP stored water on agricultural lands would continue to occur. As resource agencies, conservation groups, and water users continue to identify improvements in water quality as a priority and systematically take actions to protect and improve water quality, the trend of slight improvement would be predicted to continue. In addition, OWRD would subsequently not issue instream water rights for releases of WVP stored water intended to meet BiOp mainstem and tributary flow objectives. Lacking the instream water rights for protection, WVP stored water released for the benefit of ESA-listed fish would be available for use by existing water right holders per Oregon water law. If the flows were unprotected the flow would not be certain to maintain or improve water quality for ESAlisted fish. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 98 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 6.5.3.1 Tributary Water Temperatures As discussed on 6.5.1 above, analysis of temperature differences between the TSP and the No Action Alternative found that the TSP provided cooler temperatures than the No Action Alternative in the North and South Santiam rivers in July and August, and warmer temperatures in September and October, however these differences were small. Temperature differences between the TSP and No Action Alternative were estimated to be less the 1.5°C, and usually less than 0.5°C. 6.5.3.2 Mainstem Water Temperatures As discussed in 6.5.2 above, findings from the analysis of mainstem water temperatures are: 1. Changes in streamflow differences between the No Action Alternative and the TSP are very small in April-May; 2. Changes in streamflow begin to be more noticeable in June-August and there would typically be more flow under the TSP than under the No Action Alternative; and 3. There would be essentially no predicted change between the No Action Alternative and the TSP in the first attainment of three consecutive days of water temperature at or above 15°C or 18°C. 6.5.4 Tentatively Selected Plan Under the TSP, M&I peak season needs for WVP stored water would gradually accumulate over the period of analysis as requests for water storage contracts were requested, granted, and utilized. Within the Willamette River basin, users divert water from the free-flowing river segments because the centers of population, industry, and agriculture are all downstream of the reservoirs. When, under the TSP, there is an increased demand for WVP stored water the released stored water flows many river miles from the dam to the point of diversion, explaining the additional flow identified by the model in June-August. This is important when considering the potential effects to water quality because the demand for WVP stored water accumulates within predicted geographic regions (i.e., in areas of projected population growth). To depict the spatial distribution of future M&I demands for WVP stored water, demands in Year 2050 were distributed by Reclamation contract reach. Figure 6-1 depicts this spatial distribution and the portion of demands within each reach (designated as 1 through 15 on the figure). As shown in the figure, 92 percent of the future M&I demand for WVP stored water would be released from the WVP for eventual diversion from the Willamette River in Reach 1. Over the entire distance between the dam from which it was released and the point of diversion in Reach 1, 92 percent of the WVP stored water released for M&I use under the TSP would provide water quality benefits. The total length of Reclamation contract reaches 2 through 15 is approximately 345 miles; Reach 1 is approximately 110 miles in length. Thus, for approximately 92 percent of future M&I demand for WVP stored water, the increase in stored water released from the WVP to meet that demand would provide water quality benefits for at least 345 miles of tributary and mainstem river habitat before being diverted from the Willamette River within Reach 1. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 99 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study While there would be slightly more flow under the TSP, it is not expected that water temperature, DO concentrations, nutrients, and bacteria would measurably increase or decrease in response to TSP implementation – changes in flow under the TSP are likely to not be sufficient to result in measurable changes to these parameters. Figure 6-1 Spatial Distribution of M&I Demand for WVP Stored Water (2050) Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 100 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 6.6 ESA-Listed Fish Impacts Under both the No Action Alternative and the TSP, exogenous conditions outside of any reallocation of WVP conservation storage68 would lead to changes in the achievement of BiOp mainstem and tributary flow objectives from what the achievement of flow objectives would be at the base year of 2020. The 2008 NMFS BiOp set minimum flow objectives69 on the Willamette mainstem at both Albany and Salem and on select tributaries with WVP dams. An overview of the analytical methods used to evaluate flow objective performance under the No Action Alternative and the TSP is provided below70. BiOp Minimum Mainstem and Tributary Flow Objectives Mainstem flow objectives at Albany and Salem vary depending on the volume of water stored in the WVP, which defines the classification of a water year. The four classifications are Abundant, Adequate, Insufficient, and Deficit. The water year classification is then used to determine mainstem flow objectives for April through October of that year. The BiOp specifies two separate flow objectives at Salem: seven-day moving average flow, and instantaneous flow. As the seven-day moving average minimum flow objectives exceed the instantaneous minimum flow objectives by nearly 25 percent, the seven-day moving average flow objectives were used71 in analyses of BiOp flow objective performance at Salem. Evaluation of Flow Objective Achievement The Willamette River basin was modeled using the Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) Reservoir System Simulation Program (ResSim)72 to assess the performance of the No Action Alternative and the TSP in meeting BiOp flow objectives. ResSim is used to model reservoir systems whose operations are defined by a variety of goals and constraints. The model uses a rule-based description of the operational goals and constraints that reservoir operators must consider when making stored water release decisions. The flow dataset used for analyses are from the “2010 Level Modified Streamflows” (BPA, 2011), a complete set of flows for the entire Columbia River basin developed jointly by the BPA, the Corps, and Reclamation. This dataset contains historical daily average flows from October 1928 through September 2008, with all years adjusted to the same level of irrigation depletions. 68 See FR/EA Appendix F (ResSim WVP and Live Flow Diversions for Base Year 2020, No Action 2050, and Tentatively Selected Plan 2050 Model Runs). 69 Minimum flow objectives are presented in Tables 3-2 and 3-3 of this FR/EA. 70 FR/EA Appendix H (BiOp Flow Objective Performance of the No Action Alternative and Tentatively Selected Plan) provides additional details on the analyses described herein. 71 Seven-day moving average minimum flow objectives for Salem are specified for April 1 through June 30. From July 1 to October 31, instantaneous minimum flow objectives for Salem were used in the analysis. 72 Additional information on ResSim is available on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers HEC website: (http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/). Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 101 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Several rules in the model depend on water year classification. As described above, Insufficient and Deficit water years allow for reduced minimum flow objectives at Salem. The 80-year flow data set provides the following counts and frequencies of water types:     Abundant Adequate Insufficient Deficit 44 years (55 percent of the 80 simulated years); 14 years (17 percent of the 80 simulated years); 11 years (14 percent of the 80 simulated years); and 11 years (14 percent of the 80 simulated years). ResSim model runs and associated data used in the assessment of flow objective performance for the No Action Alternative and TSP are documented in:  FR/EA Appendix C: Calculation of Water Volumes Required to Meet Willamette BiOp Minimum Flows;  FR/EA Appendix D: Flow Dataset Used for ResSim Analyses;  FR/EA Appendix E: ResSim Analysis for 2008 Baseline Flow Dataset;  FR/EA Appendix F: ResSim WVP and Live Flow Diversions for Base Year 2020, No Action 2050, and TSP 2050 Model Runs; and  FR/EA Appendix G: ResSim Analysis for Base Year 2020, No Action 2050, and Tentatively Selected Plan 2050. Performance Evaluation Procedures and Metrics Performance of the BiOp flow objectives was evaluated for the period April 1 through October 31 in each of the simulated years, which provides 214 simulated days over 80 simulated years – a total of 17,120 simulated days. Three metrics were developed as a means of evaluating flow objective achievement under the No Action Alternative and the TSP: 1. Flow Objective Achievement on Each Simulated Day. This simple metric provides a convenient summary of absolute flow objective achievement, though alone, it does not provide sufficient information to convey the degree to which a flow objective was met over the simulation period. For example, the flow objective at Salem is 6,000 cfs on July 4, and on a simulated July 4 day where the ResSim output average daily flow is 5,999 cfs, the flow objective is not achieved on that day. 2. Percent of Flow Objective Volume of Water Met. This metric provides a means of evaluating the overall degree to which flow objectives are met over a simulated year by calculating the ratio of the total volume of water and provided to the total volume of water specified by the flow objective. While ResSim modeled flows often exceed the flow objectives, this metric was limited to a maximum ratio of 100 percent in Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 102 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study order to avoid the problem of excessive flows “averaging out” insufficient flows, which would overstate flow objective achievement on any given day.73 3. Percent of Flow Objective Volume of Water Met on Missed Objective Days. This metric evaluates the degree to which flow objectives are met for days on which the flow objective is not fully achieved. It represents the ratio of the total volume of water provided over days for which the flow objective was missed to the total volume of water specified by the flow objective over missed flow objective days that the flow objective is not met. Summary BiOp Flow Objective Performance Comparisons Table 6-1 below provides a summary performance comparison of the No Action Alternative and the TSP at year 2050 in meeting mainstem and tributary flow objectives under expected demand conditions for WVP stored water releases and permitted M&I live flow diversions. Performance comparisons are shown for the period of record and Abundant, Adequate, Insufficient, and Deficit water year types. The table shows percentages for each, with values for the No Action Alternative provided first. For example, in a comparison of the percent of days over which the flow objective is met, performance may be indicated as 97/96, which denotes that No Action Alternative meets flow objectives 97 percent of the days, and the TSP meets flow objectives on 96 percent of the days. Also included on the table is a graphic indicator of , ,or , where:  indicates that there is no notable difference between the No Action Alternative and the TSP;  indicates a difference of less than two percent between the No Action Alternative and TSP performance with TSP performance superior to the No Action Alternative performance; and  indicates a difference of less than two percent between the No Action Alternative and TSP performance with No Action Alternative performance superior to TSP performance. Additional Results FR/EA Appendix H (BiOp Flow Objective Performance of the No Action Alternative and Tentatively Selected Plan) provides this table. In addition, FR/EA Appendix H provides an extensive series of tables and charts that evaluate the performance of the No Action Alternative and TSP for each of the mainstem and tributary flow objectives. 73 In addition to this metric, FR/EA Appendix G documents the extent to which average flow in each month exceeds the minimum flow objective at Salem. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 103 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Table 6-1: Summary of Modeled BiOp Flow Objective Performance Comparison: No Action/TSP Expected WVP Releases and M&I Permitted Live Flow Diversions Performance Metric Salem Mainstem Flow Objective Albany Mainstem Flow Objective Big Cliff Tributary Flow Objective Blue River Tributary Flow Objective Cougar Tributary Flow Objective Dexter Tributary Flow Objective Fall Creek Tributary Flow Objective Foster Tributary Flow Objective Hills Creek Tributary Flow Objective All Years Abundant 44 Yrs Adequate 14 Yrs Insufficient 11 Yrs Deficit 11 Yrs Pct Days Flow Objective Met      90/90 98/98 87/88 78/78 72/72 Pct of Flow Objective Volume Met      99/99 +99/+99 99/99 97/97 95/95 Pct Days Flow Objective Met      90/90 98/98 88/91 79/79 71/71 Pct of Flow Objective Volume Met      99/99 +99/+99 99/99 97/96 94/94 Pct Days Flow Objective Met      98/97 +99/+99 +99/+99 97/97 87/86 Pct of Flow Objective Volume Met      99/99 +99/+99 +99/+99 99/99 95/95 Pct Days Flow Objective Met      +99/+99 100/100 100/100 100/100 +99/99 Pct of Flow Objective Volume Met      +99/+99 100/100 100/100 100/100 +99/99 Pct Days Flow Objective Met      98/98 100/100 99/+99 97/97 89/88 Pct of Flow Objective Volume Met      99/99 100/100 +99/+99 99/99 94/94 Pct Days Flow Objective Met      99/99 100/100 100/100 99/98 96/95 Pct of Flow Objective Volume Met      +99/+99 100/100 100/100 +99/99 98/98 Pct Days Flow Objective Met      98/98 99/99 98/97 98/96 96/94 Pct of Flow Objective Volume Met      99/98 99/99 98/97 99/97 95/93 Pct Days Flow Objective Met      92/92 97/97 94/94 82/83 77/77 Pct of Flow Objective Volume Met      97/97 +99/99 99/99 94/93 91/90 Pct Days Flow Objective Met      +99/99 100/100 100/100 99/99 99/97 Pct of Flow Objective Volume Met      +99/+99 100/100 100/100 +99/99 +99/99  - No notable difference between No Action and TSP performance  - Less than two percent difference between No Action and TSP performance – TSP performance superior  - Less than two percent difference between No Action and TSP performance – No Action performance superior Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 104 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 6.6.2 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative:  The Corps would continue to operate the WVP to meet mainstem and tributary flow objectives as often as possible as described in the 2008 BiOp (NMFS, 2008);  Reclamation would be expected to continue to issue irrigation water contracts up to, and eventually exceeding, the 95,000 acre-feet per year as described in RPA 3. Formal consultation between NMFS and Reclamation on the potential effects of issuing AI water service contracts from WVP conservation storage in excess of 95,000 acre-feet per year would depend on the listing and recovery status of ESA-listed species at the time of consultation as well as the specifics of Reclamation’s proposed action at that time;  Without a reallocation of WVP conservation storage, Reclamation would not apply for a change in character of use for their storage rights in order to match proposed reallocation of conservation storage for uses other than irrigation;  Without a change in character of use for Reclamation’s storage rights, a portion of WVP conservation storage would not be specifically allocated for F&W. OWRD would not issue instream water rights for the use of WVP stored water as described in the 2008 BiOp (RPA 2.9).  Thus, the Corps would not be able to facilitate OWRD’s conversion of released stored water to instream water rights as described in RPA 2.9;  Without a conversion of stored water to instream water rights, releases of WVP stored water for the benefit of ESA-listed fish would continue to be unprotected and available for consumptive use by existing water right holders per Oregon water law. Flow Objective Performance under the No Action Alternative The following observations of the No Action Alternative’s performance in meeting mainstem and tributary flow objectives can be made from Table 6-1:  Salem Mainstem: Flow objectives are never met at a 100 percent level, and the TSP outperforms the No Action Alternative in adequate water type years.  Albany Mainstem: Flow objectives are never met at a 100 percent level, and the TSP out-performs the No Action Alternative in adequate water type years.  Big Cliff Tributary: Flow objectives are never met at a 100 percent level, and the No Action Alternative out-performs the TSP in deficit water type years.  Blue River Tributary: Flow objectives are met at a 100 percent level in abundant, adequate, and insufficient water type years. No Action Alternative out-performs the TSP in deficit water type years.  Cougar Tributary: Flow objectives are met at a 100 percent level in abundant water type years. The TSP out-performs the No Action Alternative in adequate water year types, and the No Action Alternative out-performs the TSP in deficit water year types. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 105 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study  Dexter Tributary: Flow objectives are met at a 100 percent level in abundant and adequate water type years. The No Action Alternative out-performs the TSP in insufficient and deficit water year types.  Fall Creek Tributary: Flow objectives are never met at a 100 percent level, and the No Action Alternative out-performs the TSP in adequate, insufficient, and deficit water year types.  Foster Tributary: Flow objectives are never met at a 100 percent level, and the No Action Alternative out-performs the TSP in insufficient water year types.  Hills Creek Tributary: Flow objectives are met at a 100 percent level in abundant and adequate water year types, and the No Action Alternative out-performs the TSP in deficit water year types. 6.6.3 Tentatively Selected Plan Under the TSP:  The Corps would continue to operate the WVP to meet mainstem and tributary flow objectives as often as possible as described in the 2008 BiOp (NMFS, 2008);  Reclamation would be expected to continue to issue irrigation water contracts up to, and eventually exceeding, the 95,000 acre-feet per year as described in RPA 3. Formal consultation between NMFS and Reclamation on the potential effects of issuing AI water service contracts from WVP conservation storage in excess of 95,000 acre-feet per year would depend on the listing and recovery status of ESA-listed species at the time of consultation as well as the specifics of Reclamation’s proposed action at that time;  With a reallocation of WVP conservation storage, Reclamation would apply for a change in character of use for their storage rights in order to match proposed reallocation of conservation storage for uses other than irrigation;  With a change in character of use for Reclamation’s storage rights, a portion of WVP conservation storage would be specifically allocated for F&W. OWRD could issue instream water rights for the use of WVP stored water as described in the 2008 BiOp (RPA 2.9).  The Corps would be able to facilitate OWRD’s conversion of stored water to instream water rights as described in RPA 2.9;  With a conversion of WVP stored water releases to instream water rights, releases for the benefit of ESA-listed fish be protected and not available for consumptive use by existing water right holders per Oregon water law. Flow Objective Performance Under the TSP The following observations of the TSP’s performance in meeting mainstem and tributary flow objectives can be made from Table 6-1:  Salem Mainstem: Flow objectives are never met at a 100 percent level, and the TSP outperforms the No Action Alternative in adequate water type years. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 106 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study  Albany Mainstem: Flow objectives are never met at a 100 percent level, and the TSP out-performs the No Action Alternative in adequate water type years.  Big Cliff Tributary: Flow objectives are never met at a 100 percent level, and the No Action Alternative out-performs the TSP in deficit water type years.  Blue River Tributary: Flow objectives are met at a 100 percent level in abundant, adequate, and insufficient water type years. No Action Alternative out-performs the TSP in deficit water type years.  Cougar Tributary: Flow objectives are met at a 100 percent level in abundant water type years. The TSP out-performs the No Action Alternative in adequate water year types, and the No Action Alternative out-performs the TSP in deficit water year types.  Dexter Tributary: Flow objectives are met at a 100 percent level in abundant and adequate water type years. The No Action Alternative out-performs the TSP in insufficient and deficit water year types.  Fall Creek Tributary: Flow objectives are never met at a 100 percent level, and the No Action Alternative out-performs the TSP in adequate, insufficient, and deficit water year types.  Foster Tributary: Flow objectives are never met at a 100 percent level, and the No Action Alternative out-performs the TSP in insufficient water year types.  Hills Creek Tributary: Flow objectives are met at a 100 percent level in abundant and adequate water year types, and the No Action Alternative out-performs the TSP in deficit water year types. 6.7 6.7.1 Effects on Authorized Purposes Flood Risk Management 6.7.1.1 No Action Alternative Flood risk management will remain a primary purpose for the WVP in the future. The projects would continue to be operated as they are now without changes to the conservation or flood storage seasons, or the flood control, power, conservation, and full pool elevations specified by each project’s water control diagram. 6.7.1.2 Tentatively Selected Plan There would no difference from the No Action Alternative 6.7.2 Hydropower Production To the extent power production in the Willamette Valley is already optimized as part of the federal power system, any change in operations may entail non-optimal power production. Hydropower impacts were jointly estimated by Portland District and BPA. Portland District staff performed WVP operations simulations under the No Action Alternative and under the TSP. A detailed analysis is provided in FR/EA Appendix J (Hydropower Impacts Analyses). The expected value of hydropower production for the WVP during April through October over a 50year planning horizon was calculated for the No Action Alternative and the TSP. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 107 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 6.7.2.1 No Action Alternative The expected value of hydropower production for the WVP during April through October over a 50-year planning horizon was calculated for the No Action Alternative to be an average value of approximately $24,500,000. 6.7.2.2 Tentatively Selected Plan The difference between the value of energy under the TSP and the value of energy of under the No Action Alternative yields the estimate of the hydropower impact of the TSP in dollar terms. The expected value of hydropower production for the WVP during April through October over a 50-year planning horizon was calculated for the TSP to be approximately $24,600,000. Hydropower revenues under the TSP amount an increase of $100,000 annually. 6.7.3 Agricultural Irrigation Water Supply 6.7.3.1 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, Reclamation would be expected to continue to issue irrigation water contracts up to, and eventually exceeding, the 95,000 acre-feet per year as described in RPA 3 (NMFS, 2008). As of 2017, Reclamation had issued irrigation water supply contracts for approximately 75,000 acre-feet of water per year, leaving approximately 20,000 acre-feet per year of WVP stored water available for new contracts before triggering the analyses and consultation described in RPA 3. Based on the estimated rate of increase in demand for irrigation water, the need would be projected to exceed the 95,000 acre-feet per year limit after 2025. 6.7.3.2 Tentatively Selected Plan The availability of AI water under the TSP would be essentially unchanged from that described under the No Action Alternative. Reclamation considers entering into water service contracts discretionary agency decisions subject to their review under the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (USBOR, 2012). Because they separately fulfill their NEPA obligations on each water service contract they issue and do not require decisions from this feasibility study to continue their water service contracting actions, implementing the TSP would not affect their ongoing program implementation. Reliability of AI supply under the TSP is expected to be greater than 80 percent. 6.7.4 Municipal & Industrial Water Supply 6.7.4.1 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, M&I systems and SSI facilities would not have access to WVP stored water as a source of peak season water supply as M&I agreements can only be written when WVP conservation storage is specifically allocated to M&I use. Peak season water supply deficits for M&I (M&I systems and SSI combined) would be met through sources other than WVP stored water at a cost more than twice the cost of using WVP stored water (see Section 4). Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 108 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 6.7.4.2 Tentatively Selected Plan Under the TSP, M&I systems and SSI facilities would have access to WVP stored water as a supply source to cover anticipated peak season supply deficits. Access to WVP stored water would yield aggregate cost savings of over 50 percent when compared to the aggregate costs of meeting peak season supply deficits through sources other than WVP stored water (see Section 4). Further, providing an allocation of WVP conservation storage for M&I use would help to fulfill intent of the language included House Doc. 531, Volume 5. Paragraph 198 (“Ample storage in individual reservoirs, therefore, would be available at relatively low cost for domestic use when current facilities can no longer meet the demand.”). Reliability of supply under the TSP for M&I uses is expected to be greater than 80 percent. 6.7.5 Reservoir and Riverine Recreation Under the No Action Alternative and the TSP, there are expected to be no impacts to riverine recreation, because there would be no reduction in WVP stored water releases that would impair downstream recreation. Impacts to reservoir-related recreation are analyzed in FR/EA Appendix I (Reservoir-Related Boating Recreation Benefits Impact Analyses). 6.7.5.1 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, FR/EA Appendix I cites a total of 4,240 ramp days available within the WVP during the May 1 through September 30 period, and a total of 693,523 boating visitors – both Year 2050 values. The value of the reservoir-related recreation experience74 under the No Action Alternative in 2050 is estimated at $28,115,300. 6.7.5.2 Tentatively Selected Plan Under the TSP, FR/EA Appendix I cites a total of 4,227 ramp days available within the WVP during the May 1 through September 30 period, and a total of 691,769 boating visitors – both Year 2050 values. The value of the reservoir-related recreation experience75 under the TSP in 2050 is estimated at $28,044,300 – a reduction of $71,000 from the TSP. While there is a recreation benefit loss of $71,000 in 2050, this value is not the benefit impact that would be seen in the base year of 2020 or in the intervening years between 2020 and 2050. Impacts of the TSP in the base year 2020 are $0, because the releases of WVP stored water to serve M&I peak season demands begin at zero in the year 2020. As such, the average annual recreation benefit loss from TSP implementation is the average of the 2050 impact, and the 2020 impact, or $35,500. 74 Recreation experience was monetized using the Unit Day Value method. See FR/EA Appendix I for more information. 75 Recreation experience was monetized using the Unit Day Value method. See FR/EA Appendix I for more information. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 109 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 6.7.6 Navigation 6.7.6.1 No Action Alternative As stated in Section 2.10, Navigation was an authorized purpose of the WVP, but due to a lack of commercial navigation traffic in the upper Willamette River, the WVP was de-authorized for navigation by the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. Reservoir discharges are no longer regulated for navigation above Willamette Falls Lock (USACE, 2015f). Under the No Action Alternative there would be no change from the existing condition where there could be no effect upon navigation because this project purpose was de-authorized. 6.7.6.2 Tentatively Selected Plan Under the TSP, there would be no change from the existing condition where there could be no effect upon navigation because this project purpose was de-authorized. 6.8 Cumulative Effects This section analyzes the potential cumulative impacts that may occur following implementation of the TSP when considered with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. Cumulative effects are defined as, “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions” (40C.F.R.§1508.7). Cumulative impacts could result from individually minor actions, but which could collectively have a measurable impact over a period of time in a specific geographic area. These actions include on-site or off-site projects conducted by government agencies, businesses, or individuals that are affecting or would affect the same environmental resources as would be affected by the proposed action. The geographic boundaries and cumulative effects vary for each resource, but the boundary for this analysis has been limited to the Willamette River and tributaries downstream of the 13 Corps dams. Only those resources assessed in detail (see Section 6.3.5) were evaluated in the cumulative effects analysis. Resources excluded from analysis include resources at the reservoirs (shoreline and aquatic habitats, wetlands, fisheries, water quality, aesthetics, and erosion), downstream (downstream riparian habitats, aesthetics, navigation, wildlife, and erosion), and effects typically associated with construction activities (air quality; geology; hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste; noise; occupational safety; soils; topography; traffic; race, poverty, and environmental justice). 6.8.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued a memorandum on June 24, 2005 regarding analysis of past actions. This memorandum states, “…agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical details of individual past actions.” Thus, this section characterizes the existing conditions of the affected resources and discusses how the indirect effects from implementing the TSP (there are no direct effects from implementing the TSP) may contribute to impacts from present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 110 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 6.8.1.1 Past Actions WVP Construction and Operation Existing conditions in the Willamette River watershed include the past construction of the 13 Corps dams and reservoirs as well as the downstream Bank Stabilization program. Construction of the 13 Corps dams and reservoirs in the Willamette basin fundamentally changed the character of the watershed, moderating flood flows during the winter by strategically storing and releasing water to manage flood risk. In addition to flood risk management, the dams and reservoirs function to maintain downstream flows throughout the summer via the strategic release of water to supplement downstream inflows. Given the year-round maintenance of downstream flows, OWRD and Reclamation have issued a number of water rights and irrigation contracts over time to meet authorized purposes and downstream uses (USACE, 2014). Willamette River Bank Protection Program The Flood Control Acts of 1936, 1938, and 1950 authorized the Corps to develop and implement the Willamette River Bank Protection Program and the construction of 450,000 linear feet of river bank protection works (USACE, 2009). In 1971, the Senate and House Committees on Public Works expanded the program’s scope to a total of 510,000 linear feet. The Corps maintains about 489,800 linear feet of erosion protection at 230 locations in the system above river mile (RM) 59.6. These projects are mostly rock revetments constructed of heavy quarry stone placed on riverbanks to keep them from being eroded by the force of flowing water, wind, and/or wave action. Although bank protection structures occur below RM 59.6, they are not part of the WVP and are not maintained by the Corps. New erosion areas are associated primarily upstream or downstream of existing revetments or on the outside bends of unprotected reaches. The ongoing Willamette River Floodplain Restoration Study will identify opportunities for correcting bank erosion problems in the future. Bureau of Reclamation Water Marketing Program As of 2017, there were about 75,000 acre-feet of water contracted for irrigation through Reclamation’s water marketing program. Through the formal consultation process, NMFS identified required measures to minimize the effects of diversions by Reclamation’s contractors on ESA-listed fish and their habitat (USBOR, 2009). These measures continue to be implemented and include requiring existing contract water diverters to install screens and other fish passage devices within a specified timeframe; requiring screening of all new contract diversions; and ensuring that water released to serve contractors does not prevent meeting minimum flow objectives by reducing the volume of stored water diverted by contract holders in deficit water years (USBOR, 2009). The overall purpose for these measures is to avoid jeopardizing ESA-listed fish and to avoid destroying or adversely modifying their critical habitat while also allowing for continued water marketing and contracting by Reclamation to meet current and future irrigation needs in the Willamette River basin. These measures serve to cumulatively diminish the environmental effects to listed species from Reclamation’s water marketing program in the Willamette River basin. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 111 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study WVP Recreational Boating Access Boat ramps at WVP reservoirs typically include at least one boat ramp at each reservoir that is sufficiently long/deep so that regardless of how drawn down the conservation pool level in the reservoir, boaters could still have access. In addition, the Corps maintains a real-time reservoir and river level information displaying the current water elevation of the WVP reservoirs, the amount of water flowing into and out of the reservoirs, and detailed water elevation and flow information which includes how water levels relate to boat ramp elevations.76 The availability of continued boating access during lower pool levels and the ability for recreationists to evaluate the water level condition in all of the WVP reservoirs help maintain recreation visitation and use benefits. 6.8.1.2 Present Actions Willamette River Floodplain Restoration Study The Willamette River Floodplain Restoration Study evaluated alternatives for restoring natural floodplain functions in the lower Coast and Middle Forks of the Willamette River (USACE, 2013). This study was conducted in phases due to the large size and complexity of the Willamette River basin. Phase 1 of the study involved the development of a framework level plan for the entire Willamette River basin and Phase 2 produced the 2013 feasibility study of floodplain restoration opportunities in the lower Coast and Middle Forks of the Willamette River. Ongoing efforts at restoring the Willamette River floodplain have examined restoration of wetland and shallow water habitats; excavation of connector channels via backwater channels; removal of invasive species; plantings with native wetland, riparian and floodplain vegetation; placement of large wood in floodplain, installation of engineered log jams in the river, removal of debris and revetment materials, and installation of culverts at road-crossings (USACE, 2013). BPA’s Willamette River Basin Wildlife Habitat Protection and Enhancement The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) has formed a long-term agreement with the state of Oregon to permanently resolve longstanding issues regarding the protection, mitigation, and enhancement of wildlife affected by the construction and operation of federal dams in the Willamette River basin and to provide for important fish habitat protection and restoration (BPA, 2010). The Agreement established goals for mitigating the effects of the construction, inundation and operation of the WVP. Under the terms of the Agreement, Oregon and the BPA agreed to acquire at least an additional 16,880 acres of wildlife mitigation property to protect 26,537 acres (or more) by the end of 2025 (NWPCC, 2015). To accomplish this mitigation objective, the parties established the Willamette Wildlife Mitigation Program, managed by ODFW. The program provides for continued acquisition of wildlife habitat and it encourages habitat projects with dual wildlife and fish benefits selecting the most biologically valuable and costeffective habitat projects, assuring lasting value for Oregon, BPA ratepayers, and the region. As of 2015, mitigation actions were underway or completed at 23 legacy properties (9,657 acres) 76 http://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/Missions/Water/ Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 112 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study and 19 agreement properties (4,197 acres) (NWPCC, 2015). The agreement requires that at least 10-percent of funding gores to projects that provide “habitat protection or restoration with significant benefits for both wildlife and ESA-listed anadromous fish species under the NMFS Willamette Biological Opinion (NWPCC, 2015). These ongoing actions attempt to directly mitigate the effects of the continued operation of the WVP dams and reservoirs. Adult Fish Collection Facility Rebuild In partial fulfillment of the 2008 BiOp RPA, the Corps has rebuilt adult fish collection facilities at Foster Dam on the South Santiam, near Minto Dam (not a WVP facility) on the North Santiam River, and is completing construction at the Fall Creek Dam in order to improve collection and transport of wild spring Chinook and winter-run steelhead upstream of the respective dams. 6.8.1.3 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Bureau of Reclamation Water Marketing Program Reclamation administrates a water marketing program whereby landowners and/or institutional entities may contract for a supply of WVP stored water for irrigation. Under this program, Reclamation typically executes an irrigation water service contract that would provide for the release and/or diversion up to a quantity of stored water annually within one of the Reclamation contract reaches. After a contract is entered into by Reclamation, and in order to make that water available to the contract holder, the Corps would alter releases from an upstream WVP reservoir (or reservoirs). The terms of the contract specify how many acres of land (i.e., not more than) on which the diverted water would serve. For minor amounts of irrigation water, Reclamation evaluates an applicant’s proposal to determine whether extraordinary circumstances (516 DM 2 Appendix 2 and 43 CFR 46.215) that could be environmentally significant are present (USBOR, 2017a). If there are no extraordinary circumstances, Reclamation approves the contract and categorically excludes77 their approval from the need to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. If there are extraordinary circumstances, or the volume being sought exceeds the “minor amounts” threshold, Reclamation would prepare an environmental assessment to evaluate the environmental significance of issuing the water supply contract. In addition, NMFS and USFWS issued BiOps (NMFS, 2007; USFWS, 2007) to complete ESA Section 7 consultation and Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) consultation on the WVP. Reclamation’s water marketing program was also included in those consultations. If the amount of contracted water in the entire water marketing program exceeds 95,000 acre-feet, Reclamation must re-initiate consultation with NMFS and USFWS (USBOR, 2017a). The terms of the BiOps include non-discretionary Terms and Conditions for protection of ESA-listed fish and their habitats. 77 516 DM 6 Appendix 9.4 D(4) - Approval, execution, and implementation of water service contracts for minor amounts of long-term water use or temporary or interim water use where the action does not lead to long-term changes and where the impacts are expected to be localized. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 113 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Willamette Fish Operations Plan The Willamette Fish Operations Plan (WFOP) is developed annually by the Corps in coordination with the BPA and regional federal, state and Tribal fish agencies and other partners through the Willamette Fish Passage Operations & Maintenance (WFPOM) coordination team (USACE, 2017). The WFOP describes year-round operations and maintenance (O&M) activities to protect and enhance anadromous and resident fish species listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA, as well as non-listed species of concern. The WFOP guides Corps actions related to fish protection and passage at the 13 WVP dams. The WFOP is developed in accordance with the NMFS BiOp RPA 4.3 (NMFS, 2008) for the operation and maintenance of WVP dams and fish passage facilities to minimize impacts to fish. The WFOP is revised as necessary to incorporate changes to project O&M as a result of new facilities or changes in operational procedures. Revisions incorporate changes adopted through coordination with NMFS and USFWS as part of the ESA Section 7 consultation, Recovery Plan, or Incidental Take permit processes, and through consideration of other regional input and plans (USACE, 2017). Sustainable Rivers Program The following text is summarized from a report titled, “Implementation of Environmental Flows in the Willamette Valley” (USACE, 2015e). The Sustainable Rivers Program (SRP) began in 2002 as a partnership between The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the Corps with the objective of developing, implementing, and refining a framework for beneficial flows downstream of WVP dams (USACE, 2015a). SRP efforts in the Willamette River basin focus on modifying dam releases within existing operational constraints to improve the overall downstream ecosystem health and resiliency by enhancing channel habitat, modifying channel features, and scouring and flushing of channels. The releases that provide these benefits are termed environmental flows (E-flows). Environmental flow implementation falls under the range of flood risk management operations outlined in the Water Control Manuals (USACE, 2015e). Flood risk management operations occur primarily in the wintertime period (December through February) and E-flow releases are not to be performed if they conflict with flood risk management operations. The E-flows are an opportunity-driven operation that does not reduce WVP stored water during the summer months. This means that E-flow operations will not affect the availability of WVP stored water for the conservation season, and the use of stored water to meet AI or M&I demands does not affect the ability of the system to provide E-flows as the opportunity arises. As such, the E-flow operations do not need to be modeled in the Base Year 2020, No Action 2050 or TSP 2050 ResSim simulations. 6.8.1.4 Cumulative Effects Summary Climate and Climate Change Climate change, population growth, and income growth have the potential to significantly affect the availability and use of water in the Willamette River basin, but how these changes would affect water scarcity is uncertain (Jaeger et al., 2017). This study has incorporated current Corps guidance on incorporating climate change impacts to inland hydrology in civil works studies, designs, and projects (USACE, 2016h). Corps projects, programs, missions, and operations have Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 114 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study generally proven to be robust in the face of natural climate variability over their operating life spans. Recent scientific evidence shows, however, that in some geographic locations and for some impacts relevant to Corps operations, climate change is shifting the climatological baseline about which natural climate variability occurs (USACE, 2016h). More extreme seasonal conditions of rainfall and runoff (flooding or drought) may become more prevalent and these conditions may be exacerbated by future changes in the health and sustainability of important species and demands for energy and water. Improved knowledge of these changes is important because the assumptions of stationary climatic baselines and a fixed range of natural variability as captured in the historical hydrologic record may no longer be appropriate for long-term project planning. However, projections of specific climate changes and their associated impacts to local-scale project hydrology that may occur in the future can be highly uncertain, requiring guidance on their interpretation and use (USACE, 2016h). As described in Section 5.2.7.4, retaining a portion of WVP conservation storage as Joint Use under the TSP provides flexibility to the Corps in reducing vulnerabilities and responding to climate change-induced increases in the demand for WVP stored water (USACE, 2016h). Water Quality Figure 6-1 showed the spatial distribution of future M&I demands for WVP stored water to illustrate the distribution of 2050 demands by Reclamation contract reach. Similarly, Figure 6-2 depicts the spatial distribution of future AI demand for WVP stored water, illustrating that although the majority (59 percent) of AI demand is within Reach 1, the remaining AI demand is more widely distributed throughout the remaining contract reaches than M&I demand. Figure 6-3 shows the spatial distribution of the combined (M&I and AI) demand for WVP stored water by contract reach. More than 70 percent of the combined AI and M&I demands for WVP stored water would be diverted from the Willamette River within Reach 1. No other contract reach shows more than five percent of the combined demand for WVP stored water diverted for consumptive use. Because water quality problems in the Willamette River have largely been associated with periods of low flow (Griffith, 1983), approximately 70 percent of future M&I and AI demand for WVP stored water would provide water quality benefits for the entire length of tributary and mainstem river habitat before being diverted from the Willamette River within Reach 1. The USEPA conducted extensive watershed modeling to assess the sensitivity of streamflow, nutrient, and sediment loads to potential climate change and urban development in twenty different watersheds, including the Willamette River (USEPA, 2013). The modeling projected future changes in urban and residential development as of the year 2050 in order to estimate the potential effects to water quality including total suspended solids, total phosphorus, and total nitrogen (USEPA, 2013). The results predicted virtually no changes for the water quality parameters at the single modeled location at the Willamette River just before its confluence with the Columbia River. Given the long-term trends of improving water quality in the Willamette River discussed in Section 2.3, the spatial distribution of 70-percent of the future diversions within contract reach 1, and the results of the USEPA’s analysis, the cumulative effect to water quality parameters (water temperature, DO concentrations, nutrients, and bacteria) would not be predicted to be substantially altered. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 115 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Figure 6-2 Spatial Distribution of AI Demand for WVP Stored Water (2050) Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 116 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Figure 6-3 Spatial Distribution of M&I and AI Demand for WVP Stored Water (2050) Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 117 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study ESA-Listed Fish Following issuance of the 2008 NMFS and USFWS BiOps, the Action Agencies have been implementing the RPA. Implementation includes research, monitoring and evaluation (RM&E) efforts that work to improve understanding of ESA-listed species and their responses to management actions including: temperature control; flow modifications; hatchery reforms and upgrades; fish passage; and habitat restoration projects as characterized in Sections 6.8.1.2 (Present Actions) and 6.8.1.3 (Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions). Implementing the TSP would be predicted to not impair the Corps ability to implement the RPA as described in the 2008 BiOp (NMFS, 2008). The Corps continues to implement components of the RPA including:  Construction of three new adult fish facilities at Cougar, Minto, and Foster as described in Section 6.8.1.1 (Past Actions) for collection and transport to upstream habitats;  Interim operations for downstream fish passage;  Temperature improvement implemented at several dams;  Improvements to adult fish release sites at spawning grounds above the dams; and  Research to fill data gaps supporting alternative selection and design (USACE, 2015f). Habitat-based ongoing actions and future habitat improvement under the Willamette River Floodplain Restoration Study and habitat protection or restoration under the BPA’s Willamette River Basin Wildlife Habitat Protection and Enhancement (as described in Section 6.8.1.2 Present Actions) set priorities and provide important habitat improvement benefits for both wildlife and ESA-listed anadromous fish species (NWPCC, 2015). Reasonably foreseeable future actions include the Corps continuing to balance Congressionallydirected multiple project purposes with the operation of the WVP. Reclamation would continue to administer the water marketing program utilizing WVP stored water to meet demand for irrigation and would continue to enforce terms and conditions in their water service contracts for protection of ESA-listed fish and their habitats. The Willamette Fish Operations Plan describes year-round operations and maintenance (O&M) activities to protect and enhance anadromous and resident ESA-listed fish, as well as non-listed species of concern. Annual development of the Willamette Fish Operations Plan allows the Corps to continually incorporate changes to project O&M as a result of new facilities or changes in operational procedures as well as emerging results from scientific investigations. The annual preparation of this comprehensive plan to address emerging issues facilitates adaptive management to minimize the negative cumulative effects and enhance or improve the positive cumulative effects. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 118 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 7 M&I User Cost, Financial Feasibility, and Yield 7.1 Derivation of M&I User Cost The purpose of this section is to derive the price charged for M&I use of WVP stored water. Per ER 1105-2-100, the methodology used to calculate the price of reallocated storage is the highest of the revenues or benefits foregone, replacement cost, or the updated cost of storage of the federal project. Of the authorized purposes described throughout this FR/EA, only hydroelectric power and recreation are anticipated to incur a change in revenues (hydroelectric power) or benefits (recreation) as result of TSP implementation. Flood risk management benefits will not change under the TSP, and are therefore not evaluated. 7.1.1 Hydropower Revenues Foregone Changes in hydropower revenues foregone have been addressed in Section 6.7.2 above. Results of the analysis are repeated below. The expected value of hydropower production for the WVP during April through October over a 50-year planning horizon was calculated for conditions under the No Action Alternative and the TSP. The difference between the value of energy generated under the TSP and the value of energy generated of under the No Action Alternative yields the estimate of the hydropower impact of the TSP in dollar terms. These values are provided in Table 7-1. As shown in the table, hydropower revenues increase by $100,000 under the TSP, which yields a value of $0 lost hydropower revenues annually. Table 7-1 Annual Changes in Hydropower Revenues for the WVP Conservation Season Operational Scenario No Action Alternative $ 24,500,000 Tentatively Selected Plan $ 24,600,000 Lost Hydropower Revenue 7.1.2 Value of Hydropower Produced $0 Recreation Benefits Foregone Implementation of the TSP would affect conservation storage pool elevations and/or the timing of pool draw down. Reallocation of WVP conservation storage could change existing reservoir pool elevations throughout the summer conservation use season. Many activities occur at WVP recreation facilities, but the only recreation activity that could be directly affected by implementation of the TSP would be recreational boating, though any effects would occur gradually over the next 30 years. The Unit Day Value (UDV) method78 for estimating recreation benefit impacts was used in this analysis to monetize the change in recreation benefits between the conditions under the No 78 See FR/EA Appendix I (Reservoir-Related Boating Recreation Benefits Impact Analyses) for a description of the UDV method, UDV points assignment, and UDV analysis of the No Action Alternative and the TSP. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 119 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Action Alternative and conditions under the TSP. FR/EA Appendix I (Reservoir-Related Boating Recreation Benefits Impact Analyses) provides a summary of visits, ramp days available, and UDV comparisons for the No Action Alternative and the TSP. Total monetary changes in recreation benefits are provided in Table 7-2 below. Table 7-2 Changes in Annual Recreation Benefits for the WVP Conservation Season 7.1.3 Operational Scenario UDV Benefits No Action Alternative 2050 $ 28,115,300 Tentatively Selected Plan 2050 $ 28,044,300 Reduced Recreation Benefits 2050 $ 71,000 Average Annual Reduced Recreation Benefits $ 35,500 Updated Cost of Storage The updated cost of storage for M&I water supply was determined by first computing the Joint Use costs at the time of construction by subtracting the specific costs from the total construction cost and multiplying the result by the ratio of storage (acre-feet) to total conservation storage (acre-feet). In this computation, conservation storage includes space set aside for sediment distribution. The cost allocated to the storage on this basis was escalated to present day price levels by use of the Corps of Engineers Civil Works Construction Cost Index System (CWCCIS) maintained in EM 110-2-1304 (31 Mar 2017). Since the CWCCIS dates back only to 1967, the ENR Construction Cost Index was used to update the cost of older projects to the 1967 time frame. Costs were indexed from the midpoint of the physical construction period to the beginning of the fiscal year in which the project became operational. Table 7-3 below lists select variables used in calculating the updated cost of storage for the eleven storage projects and the updated cost of construction and price per acre-foot of storage for each project. System pricing was assessed because the Corps will charge a system price based on the cost of the entirety of WVP conservation storage, not the cost associated with an individual reservoir. This reflects the reality of operating the projects as a system and maintains operational flexibility in meeting the authorized purposes. Approval to use the system pricing approach was received on 16 June 2016 and confirmed during the TSP milestone meeting on 5 July 2017. Table 7-3 shows a total system price of $2,615.57 per acre-foot, and was calculated as total system cost / total usable storage ($4,387,753,300 / 1,677,551 acre-feet). Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 120 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Table 7-3 WVP Updated M&I Cost of Storage Components – Capital Costs Project Total Conservation Storage (AF) Initial Const. Cost (Joint Use) ($) Indexed FY 2018 Const. Cost (Joint Use) ($) Blue River 85,529 29,381,230 260,008,800 Cottage Grove 29,761 2,276,000 79,550,800 Cougar 147,800 49,262,900 539,119,400 Detroit 300,700 41,405,200 732,111,000 Dorena 70,506 13,306,000 389,573,200 Fall Creek 113,657 20,099,700 193,644,800 Fern Ridge 94,498 2,296,000 80,249,900 Foster 29,700 18,673,300 179,902,600 Green Peter 268,200 47,734,500 459,884,500 Hills Creek 200,200 39,168,300 443,168,200 Lookout Point 337,000 62,054,390 1,030,540,100 1,677,551 325,657,520 4,387,753,300 Total Cost Per Acre-Foot of Conservation Storage ($) 2,615.57 The annual payment value for M&I storage of water is calculated based on a 30 year repayment period. The capital cost for 73,300 acre-feet of storage is $ 191,721,300 (73,300 x $2,615.57). The annual payment for this water, as calculated in FY2018 using a finance period of 30 years at an interest rate of 2.75 percent (EGM 18-01, Federal Interest Rates for Corps of Engineers Projects for Fiscal Year 2018) is $ 9,468,000, or a 30-year annual cost of $ 129.17 per acre-foot. An annual O&M cost is also due every year and is based on the O&M expense for the WVP in the Government fiscal year most recently ended. FY17 O&M costs for the WVP were $14,119,000. The requested amount of storage, 73,300 acre-feet, is 4.6 percent of conservation storage, which yields an initial O&M cost of $650,900 ($14,119,000 x 4.6%), or $8.88 per acrefoot. The O&M cost charged will be recalculated each year based on the previous year’s O&M cost. Costs for repair, rehabilitation, and replacement (RR&R) will be charged as these costs are incurred and will be based on the percentage of conservation storage contracted to each agreement holder. Agreement holders are encouraged, but not required, to establish a fund in the event future RR&R costs occur during the agreement period. Payment is required for RR&R costs incurred while the contract is in place. It should be noted that O&M, RR&R and any dam safety modification costs would be borne by the agreement holders on a proportionate basis as described above for the entire duration of the contract, though annual payments for storage of water (129.17 per acre-foot) are expected to be completed within 30 years. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 121 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Table 7-4 lists the various costs and payments for an M&I water storage agreement entered into in FY18. Table 7-4 Costs and Payments for M&I Water Storage Agreement Acre-feet of Water Capital Cost of Water Repayment Period 73,300 $191,721,300 30 Years Repayment Rate 2.75% Annual Payment $9,468,000 FY17 O&M Cost * Total Annual Payment * Annual Cost per acre-foot of Water * 650,900 $10,118,900 $138.05 *O&M costs are updated annually; therefore these values will vary slightly each year. 7.1.4 Identification of M&I User Cost The methods of determining an appropriate M&I user cost for WVP stored water are summarized in Table 7-5 below. The table shows that the updated cost of storage would be the M&I user cost, as the updated cost of storage exceeds the total value of benefits and revenues foregone. Table 7-5 Annual System-Wide User Cost Computation Methods User Cost Calculation Method Benefits Foregone Revenues Foregone Subtotal Revenues & Benefits Foregone Updated Cost of Storage 7.2 Average Annual Value $35,500 $0 $35,500 $10,118,900 Test of Financial Feasibility As a test of financial feasibility, the annual cost of storage should be compared to the cost of the most-likely, least-costly alternative that the applicant would undertake in the absence of utilizing the federal project. This should be an alternative that would provide water of equivalent quality and quantity. Unit costs of Alternative 1 for 73,300 acre-feet were used in the analysis for comparison with the TSP. As shown in the table, the reallocation of storage has a substantial Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 122 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study advantage over the next least cost for providing a source of water supply for M&I peak season demand in the future. Table 7-6 Comparison of Costs and Benefits: Federal and Non-Federal Plans WVP Cost of Storage Annualized Cost per Acre-Foot (73,300 acre-feet) TSP Annual Unit Costs TSP Annual Costs ($) $129.17 WVP Operation and Maintenance Annual Cost per Acre-Foot (73,300 acre-feet) $8.88 Infrastructure Cost to Access WVP Annual Cost per Acre-Foot (73,300 acre-feet) $77.2479 Non-federal Annual Unit Costs Non-federal Annual Costs ($) 9,468,150 n/a n/a 650,900 n/a n/a 5,661,700 Non-Federal Measure: Intercon Annual Cost per Acre-Foot (40,530 acre-feet) n/a n/a $457.38 18,537,600 Non-Federal Measure: ASR Annual Cost per Acre-Foot (32,770 acre-feet) n/a n/a $470.71 15,425,150 Annual M&I Water Supply Cost (peak season, 73,300 acre-feet) 15,780,750 Annual M&I Supply Benefits 18,182,000 7.3 33,962,750 Yield Based upon the seasonal availability of WVP stored water and the system operations of WVP reservoirs, calculating dependable yield using the standard methods is not possible. Use of reliability in lieu of dependable yield for M&I water supply agreements from the WVP was discussed and approved by the vertical team at the 16 June 2017 In-Progress Review meeting. 79 Annualized unit cost per acre-foot estimated from M&I systems and SSI deficit costs for WVP access pipelines, intakes and pump stations for M&I system deficits and SSI deficits. Capital Cost: $189,492,000; Annualized Cost: $9,357,950; Acre-feet over which unit costs applied: 121,150. Per acre unit cost: $77.24. See Section 4 Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 123 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 8 Plan Implementation This Feasibility Study is at the Tentatively Selected Plan phase. This study report is undergoing simultaneous public review, policy review, Agency Technical Review and Independent External Peer Review. Once comments have been considered and appropriate changes made to the plan, the next step is to reach an Agency Decision. From the Agency Decision, the report undergoes rigorous review of cost, engineering, environmental and economic benefits and culminates in a Report to the Chief of Engineers (Chief’s Report). The Chief’s Report contains the Chief of Engineer’s recommendation and signifies the completion of the Corps’ feasibility study process. The Chief’s Report is forwarded to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works (ASA(CW)). The ASA(CW) will review the documents to determine the level of administration support for the Chief of Engineers recommendation. The report is then transmitted to the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the ASA(CW) signature. OMB will then provide a letter to ASA(CW) either clearing the release of the report to Congress subject to whatever changes OMB deems necessary or objecting to the release. Depending on the extent of changes in the recommendations it may be necessary to provide an opportunity for the sponsor, interested federal agencies, and other parties to review and comment on the changes prior to transmitting the report to Congress. 8.1 Division of Implementation Responsibilities The selected plan includes the reallocation of Joint Use storage to specific purposes and an adaptive management plan for management of stored water when the reservoirs do not fill. The annual adaptive management plan to manage stored water in the conservation pool under the Tentatively Selected Plan is described in Section 5.4.2. Once the reallocation and adaptive management plan are approved, additional actions will be necessary to fully achieve the study goals, as described in Section 1.9. 8.1.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers The Corps is responsible for the municipal and industrial water supply program on behalf of the federal government. After conservation storage is reallocated, the Corps will enter into individual agreements with municipal and/or industrial entities for conservation storage space in the WVP. Most of the agreements will not list a specific reservoir as the eleven storage projects are operated as a system; hence the Corps will determine the source of the water provided, which may change in any given week, month, or year. The Corps is solely responsible for the sale of WVP conservation storage to M&I entities, will handle all agreements with M&I entities, and will receive payments to the U.S. Government from M&I entities for WVP conservation storage. The Corps currently works with Reclamation on the use of water from WVP reservoirs for the purpose of irrigation. Reclamation is responsible for the sale of water stored in federal projects for irrigation, handles all irrigation contracts, and receives payments to the U.S. Government for irrigation water. The Corps determines water availability and releases from the Corps dams to satisfy these contracts. This arrangement is expected to continue is in the same manner as it does currently. Once the action is approved by Congress, the Corps will update the Water Control Manuals and the Drought Contingency Plan to reflect the updated storage allocations and the adaptive Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 124 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study management plan. Federal funding for updating the Water Control Manuals and Drought Contingency Plan will be through the Operations and Maintenance budget process. The estimated federal cost to update the manuals is $62,000. This project will not include any construction activities at the WVP reservoirs, so there should be no costs incurred for design and construction associated with the reallocation action. 8.1.2 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Reclamation holds water rights certificates from OWRD to store water for irrigation purposes as described in Section 1.9.1. In order for potential water supply uses (e.g., M&I, F&W) to realize benefits from the reallocation of storage, the character of use on the two storage certificates issued by OWRD must be changed from irrigation to multi-purpose Joint Use storage for the full volume of existing storage covered by the certificates to reflect the multipurpose nature of the WVP’s conservation storage or the two storage certificates must be changed to reflect the reallocated volumes specified in the selected plan. Reclamation must request that OWRD change the character of use on the storage certificates. If Reclamation does not request that OWRD change the storage water rights certificates to affect a change in character of use, even if the USACE completes the reallocation of storage (i.e., completes this study), OWRD could not issue secondary water rights for the use of stored water for either F&W or M&I. Reclamation is responsible for the irrigation contract water marketing program on behalf of the federal government and will continue this activity after implementation of the selected plan. Reclamation is responsible for the sale of water stored in federal projects for irrigation, handles all irrigation contracts, and receives payments to the U.S. Government for irrigation water. 8.1.3 Oregon Water Resources Department After Reclamation makes the request for a change of use on the storage certificates, OWRD must initiate the review process for the transfer application as described in Section 1.9.2. Only after Reclamation requests the change in character of use for the two storage certificates and OWRD issues a change in character of use for the two water storage rights certificates, can OWRD respond to requests for, and issue applicants secondary water rights. Each of the preceding actions by Reclamation (i.e., requesting the change in character for the storage certificates) and OWRD (i.e., issuing the changes in character of use for the storage certificates) must occur before applicants can solicit OWRD to issue them a secondary water right for the use of WVP stored water. In order to utilize WVP stored water, entities must request, and be issued, secondary water rights by OWRD. OWRD will also fund the portion of the Water Control Manuals and Willamette Master Manual updates to capture the M&I activities in the selected plan, per the 1958 Water Supply Act. This is roughly expected to cost $3,000 total for all manuals (see Section 8.2 below). 8.1.4 WVP Stored Water Users The consumptive water users are responsible for the operation, maintenance, and repair of infrastructure, treatment and distribution facilities associated with the use of WVP stored water. The users are also responsible for seeking agreements with the Corps for M&I storage and contracts with Reclamation for irrigation water. Users would also be responsible for obtaining secondary water rights from OWRD to use the stored water. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 125 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 8.2 Implementation Costs With respect to implementation costs, this project will not include any construction activities at the WVP reservoirs, so there should be no costs incurred for design and construction associated with the reallocation action. The OWRD will be responsible for updating the water control manuals to capture the M&I action, at no cost to the Federal Government per the 1958 Water Supply Act. The Federal Government will be responsible for funding the updates to capture the AI and F&W allocations. Estimated costs for updating the manuals are shown in Table 8-1 below. The water users are responsible for the operation, maintenance, and repair of infrastructure, treatment, and distribution facilities associated with WVP stored water. They are also responsible for their share of the operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement costs of the WVP reservoirs. Table 8-1 Tentatively Selected Plan Implementation Costs Implementation Cost Water Control Manual Updates Master Water Control Manual Update Total Cost 8.3 Non-Federal Share ($) Federal Share ($) 2,500 52,500 500 9,500 3,000 62,000 Views of the Non-Federal Sponsor OWRD is the non-Federal sponsor for the Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study. The Department has expressed willingness to continue acting as the non-federal sponsor, as well as support to carry out completion of the study. OWRD is the state agency with legal authority and responsibility for protection and management of Oregon’s water supplies. Carrying out the Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study can help the state directly address water supply needs and resource management objectives for the Willamette River basin. Undertaking the Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study is consistent with state's recommendation of improving access to existing sources of stored water to supply long term water needs. This feasibility study has been a high priority for the state since the early 1990s and continues to be recognized as a priority under the state’s 2012 Integrated Water Resources Strategy. There is significant state and local interest in the basin to better plan for the use of reservoir storage to meet current and future water needs. OWRD, representing the State of Oregon, concurs with the proposed alternative of using stored water to meet multiples uses, including municipal, industrial, agriculture, and fish and wildlife and considers the potential outcomes of this study an improvement over the status quo. OWRD, working with other agencies, looks forward to continuing to provide input on storage reallocations and water management implementation guidelines currently recommended in this report. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 126 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 9 Public Coordination 9.1 Public Scoping As part of the FR/EA processes, the Corps announced and hosted public meetings on the scope the proposed project by engaging state, local, and federal agencies, Tribal governments, and the public in the early identification of concerns, potential effects and possible alternative actions that should be evaluated (USACE, 2016g). The Corps’ formal scoping period ran from March 02, 2016 through April 16, 2016; throughout the scoping period, comments on the recommended scope of the evaluation were be submitted to the District. To facilitate public participation in the study, the Corps conducted a series of public information scoping sessions March 15, 2016 at the Pringle Community Hall in Salem, OR and on March 16, 2016 at the City Hall/Library Meeting Room in Springfield (Eugene), OR. At these sessions, informational poster boards were available for review. Corps and OWRD staff were on hand to discuss project goals, environmental concerns, and the decision-making process. As part of this public scoping phase, the study project team received about a dozen comments. Below is a summary of comments received, grouped by theme. Climate Change    Need to address how climate change along with land use/development will affect future water supply. Allocation should be made to ameliorate impacts from climate change. Fish and wildlife allocations should take into account changes in natural flows due to climate change. Prioritization of Uses    How will water uses be prioritized during dry years? How will storage contracts be prioritized? Allocation for agriculture should be a high priority. Water Rights     Corps should work closely with the Water Resources Department during future water rights determinations. Allocations for fish and wildlife flows should satisfy conversion of the state's minimum perennial streamflows. Need to include future withdrawals/development of existing water rights in the model and evaluation. Cost of contract water must be transparent and not prohibitive to small cities. Fish and Wildlife Flows     Allocations should be made for environmental flows, not just fish and wildlife species. Fish and Wildlife flows should be a high priority. Demands should include needs for wildlife refuges. Fish and Wildlife flows are not just minimum flows, but should incorporate a full range of flows. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 127 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 9.2 Study Progress Stakeholder Meeting In addition to the public scoping meetings in March of 2016, the Portland District, in coordination with the OWRD hosted a stakeholder meeting in March of 2017 to brief interested parties on the status of the study. In attendance were stakeholder representatives from state and federal resource agencies, agriculture, municipalities, and conservation interests. Attendees are shown on Table 9-1. Table 9-1 Stakeholder Meeting Attendees Association of Oregon Counties City of Cottage Grove City of Creswell City of Creswell City of Hillsboro City of Salem Freshwater Simulations GeoSyntec GSI Water Solutions (2 representatives) HDR Engineering Jordan Ramis National Marine Fisheries Service (2 representatives) Oregon Association of Nurseries Oregon Dept. of Agriculture (3 representatives) Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (2 representatives) Oregon Farm Bureau (3 representatives) Oregon Freshwater Simulations Oregon State University (3 representatives) Oregon Water Resources Department (2 representatives) Oregon Winegrowers Association Santiam Water Control District Special Districts Association of Oregon Tualatin Valley Water District (2 representatives) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (7 representatives) U.S. Forest Service-Willamette MRRD (2 representatives) U.S. Geological Survey University of Oregon Water Resources Commission WaterWatch (3 representatives) Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 128 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 9.3 9.3.1 List of Agencies Consulted Federal Agencies U.S. Department of the Interior: Regional Director, Pacific Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Area Manager, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation District Manager, Eugene District, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Vice President Environment, Fish and Wildlife, Bonneville Power Administration. U.S. Forest Service: Forest Supervisor, Willamette National Forest, and Forest Supervisor, Umpqua National Forest. National Marine Fisheries Service: Assistant Regional Administrator, Oregon/Washington Coastal Area Office 9.3.2 State Agencies Oregon Water Resources Department Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Oregon Department of Agriculture State Historic Preservation Office 9.3.3 Native American Tribes Chair of the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians Chair of the Cowlitz Indian Tribe Chair of the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon Chair of the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians Chair of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 129 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 10 Compliance with Environmental Laws and Regulations The NEPA compliance process is typically used as the vehicle for achieving compliance not only with the CEQ regulations (40 C.F.R. Parts 1500-1508), but also with a range of other environmental laws and executive orders, including but not limited to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, Section 106 of the National Historic and Preservation Act, Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act, and air quality conformity requirements under the Clean Air Act. Making a determination to reallocate storage in WVP reservoirs from Joint Use to specific volumes dedicated to the project purposes of fish & wildlife, irrigation, and municipal and industrial water supply uses would not occur until the TSP achieves environmental compliance with the applicable laws and regulations as described below. Environmental compliance for the TSP would be achieved upon coordination of this FR/EA with appropriate agencies, organizations, and individuals for their review and comment. American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) of 1978, 42 U.S.C. § 1996. In compliance. The American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) calls for the U.S. government to respect and protect the rights of Indian tribes to the free exercise of their traditional religions. The courts have interpreted this Act as requiring agencies to consider the effects of their actions on traditional religious practices. Federal agencies must make reasonable efforts to ensure religious rights are accommodated. AIRFA does not protect Native American religions beyond the guarantees of the First Amendment and there is no affirmative relief provision under the Act. It merely provides that any subsequent federal laws enacted take into consideration religious practices of Native Americans. Implementing the TSP would not adversely affect the protections offered by this Act. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 668, 668a-668d. In compliance. The Bald Eagle Protection Act contains requirements on Corps projects concerning bald eagles. Implementing the TSP would not adversely affect bald or golden eagles or their habitat. Because of the overt inability of the TSP to effect change to water surface elevations within the reservoirs and downstream of the WVP reservoirs that would be different from the range of conditions currently observed, implementation of the TSP would not adversely affect bald or golden eagles or their habitat. Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7671q. In compliance. The purpose of this Act is to protect public health and welfare by the control of air pollution at its source, and to set forth primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards to establish criteria for states to attain or maintain. No emissions would occur as a result of implementing the TSP. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 130 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Clean Water Act, as amended, (Federal Water Pollution Control Act) 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1388. In compliance. The objective of this Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters (33 U.S.C. § 1251). The Corps regulates discharges of dredge or fill material into waters of the United States pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Section 404 requires authorization to place dredged or fill material into water bodies or wetlands. If a Section 404 authorization is required, a Section 401-water quality certification from Oregon Department of Environmental Quality is also needed. Pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, the ODEQ implements the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program under agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). For each permit, ODEQ uses a series of water quality models to determine if the facility has the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to the exceedance of a water quality standard. The proposed reallocation of WVP conservation storage would not require earth moving actions of any type to implement by the Corps, and would have no direct effects as a result. However, although not reasonably foreseeable, the reallocation of storage could allow the eventual installation of M&I water intakes sometime in the future. Although none are currently proposed, future water supply intakes would likely be subject to separate regulatory review when proposed. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675. Not applicable. Typically CERCLA is triggered by (1) the release or substantial threat of a release of a hazardous substance into the environment; or (2) the release or substantial threat of a release of any pollutant or contaminant into the environment that presents an imminent threat to the public health and welfare. Implementing the TSP would not cause any release or threatened release of hazardous substances that would require action under CERCLA. Endangered Species Act, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544. Compliance in progress Section 7 (16 U.S.C. § 1536) states that all federal departments and agencies shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary of the Interior (USFWS) and the Secretary of Commerce (NMFS), ensure that any actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them do not jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered (T&E) species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species which is determined by the Secretaries to be critical. A BA is required of the action agency when a proposed action involves major construction projects and is recommended for all other federal actions. The BA presents an evaluation of available information and a determination whether the action is likely to have an effect on an ESA-listed species or its critical habitat. The BA is provided to the appropriate resource agency (NMFS/USFWS) responsible for the species in question. Depending on the extent of the action and the nature of the effects, the resource agency reviews the BA and available information and determines whether a formal consultation under Section 7 Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 131 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study is necessary. If formal consultation is deemed necessary, a formal BiOp will be prepared by NMFS, USFWS, or both agencies (depending on the species in question). Informal consultation involves a “finding” by the action agency that the project or activity is not likely to adversely affect the ESA-listed species or critical habitat and would include a letter of concurrence from the NMFS and/or the USFWS. A BA will be submitted for Section 7 consultation on the TSP. Environmental Justice (E.O. 12898). In compliance. Federal agencies shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and lowincome populations in the United States. Because of the inability of the TSP to effect change to water surface elevations different from the range of conditions currently observed with the WVP reservoirs and downstream, and because implementation of the TSP does not involve any construction actions, there would be no disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects to minority or low-income populations. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. §§ 661-665, 665a, 666, 666a-666c. In compliance. The FWCA requires governmental agencies, including the Corps, to coordinate activities so that adverse effects on fish and wildlife would be minimized when water bodies are proposed for modification. There are no new intakes or water supply infrastructure proposed as part of the Corps’ action to implement the TSP. Future M&I water supply contracts require review by the Corps prior to allowing placement of infrastructure. If a regulatory permit is necessary, the Corps would complete NEPA evaluations and comply with all appropriate environmental laws and regulations, including the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 Compliance in progress The National Marine Fishery Service (NMFS) is responsible for consultations conducted under Section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) regarding essential fish habitat (EFH) consultation requirements. Section 305(b)(2) of the MSA requires federal agencies to consult with NMFS if their actions may adversely affect EFH. NMFS would be expected to add their assessment of whether the TSP may result in adverse effects on EFH as part of formal consultation (BA/BiOp process) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 132 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, 54 U.S.C. §§ 300101-307108. In compliance. This Act instructs federal agencies having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed federal or federally-assisted undertaking to take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. The Corps has made the determination that the proposed reallocation of storage will cause no historic properties to be effected. The reallocation of storage will not change the maximum and minimum conservation pool levels; however, as increased water is released to meet downstream needs starting in early summer, the reservoir elevations may be slightly lower earlier in the summer from the current operations. The earlier timeframe will happen slowly over a 50 years period as stored water is contracted for. The greatest threat to cultural resources due to this action is increased visitation and vandalism to historic properties. The WVP is already committed to increase patrols by Rangers during the seasonal influx of visitors and have a cultural resources awareness training for Rangers and maintenance staff. The Rangers also receive ARPA training. Under Section 106 of the NHPA, the Corps will consult with the Oregon SHPO and affected Tribes. In compliance with Section 106, the Corps is beginning consultation with Oregon SHPO and four Oregon Tribal Nations, the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians, the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Communities of Oregon, the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, and the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians. During the initial phase of the feasibility study the mouth of the Willamette River was not ruled out as part of the APE; therefore the Cowlitz Tribe was consulted with. At this time, the APE does not lie within the Cowlitz Indian Tribes area of concern and will not be consulted with for Section 106 unless contacted by the Tribe. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347. In compliance. This environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared in accordance with the CEQ’s NEPA implementing regulations (40 C.F.R. § 1508.9) and the Corps’ NEPA regulations (33 C.F.R. Part 230). Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 3001-3013. In compliance. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) addresses certain Native American and Native Hawaiian cultural items. In part, it establishes a process to follow in the event of an inadvertent discovery of human remains, funerary, sacred, and other objects of cultural patrimony from sites located on land owned or controlled by the federal government. The Corps has made the determination that the proposed reallocation of storage is in compliance with the NAGPRA. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 133 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. §403. In compliance. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act prohibits the unauthorized obstruction or alteration of any navigable water of the United States. This section provides that the construction of any structure in or over any navigable water of the United States, or the accomplishment of any other work affecting the course, location, condition, or physical capacity of such waters is unlawful unless the work has been recommended by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of the Army. There are no new intakes or water supply infrastructure proposed as part of the proposed reallocation of storage. In addition, future water supply infrastructure would likely require regulatory review by the Corps prior to allowing placement of infrastructure. In this process, the Corps would complete appropriate NEPA evaluations and comply with all appropriate environmental laws and regulations, including Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, if applicable. Floodplain Management (E.O. 11988). In compliance. Section 1 requires each agency to provide leadership and take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by flood plains in carrying out its responsibilities for (1) acquiring, managing, and disposing of federal lands and facilities; (2) providing federally-undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements; and (3) conducting federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water and related land resources planning, regulating, and licensing activities. The proposed reallocation of storage in WVP reservoirs would not affect floodplain management. Protection of Wetlands (E.O. 11990). In compliance. Federal agencies shall take action to minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying out the agencies responsibilities. Each agency, to the extent permitted by law, shall avoid undertaking or providing assistance for new construction located in wetlands unless the head of the agency finds (1) that there is no practicable alternative to such construction, and (2) that the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands, which may result from such use. In making this finding, the head of the agency may take into account economic, environmental and other pertinent factors. Each agency shall also provide opportunity for early public review of any plans or proposals for new construction in wetlands. The proposed reallocation of storage in WVP reservoirs would not require earth moving actions of any type by the Corps to implement. Changes to releases during the conservation season may lead to lower heights of reservoir water surface elevations in some years, but the water surface elevations that are the top and bottom of the conservation pool for each reservoir would remain unchanged by the proposed reallocation of storage. The pool elevations for the top and bottom of the conservation pool are a function of flood risk reduction operations, so wetlands would be unaffected because the annual drawdown to empty the conservation pool would continue and the springtime process to refill conservation storage would occur as it does currently. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 134 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Future M&I water supply intakes and water distribution infrastructure would typically require regulatory review and would need to comply with appropriate environmental laws and regulations, including E.O. 11990. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1271-1287. In compliance. This Act establishes that certain rivers of the Nation, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values, shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. All rivers federally designated as Wild and Scenic in the Willamette River basin are upstream of WVP reservoirs and would not be affected by implementing the TSP. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 135 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 11 District Engineer’s Recommendation Will be added to final document. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 136 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 12 References Bastasch, R. 2006. The Oregon Water Handbook: A Guide to Water and Water Management. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. Bloom, J.R., 2016, South Santiam River, Oregon, Hydrodynamics and Water Temperature Modeling, 2000-2002, September, 2016 DRAFT, 53 p. Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). 2010. Administrator’s Record of Decision. Willamette River Basin Memorandum of Agreement Regarding Wildlife Habitat Protection and Enhancement Between the State of Oregon and the Bonneville Power Administration. Bonneville Power Administration. (BPA). 2011. 2010 Level Modified Streamflows. Portland: Bonneville Power Administration. Buccola, N.L., Stonewall, A.J., and Rounds, S.A., 2015, Simulations of a hypothetical temperature control structure at Detroit Dam on the North Santiam River, northwestern Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2015-1012, 30 p., https://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20151012 Climate Impacts Group. 2010. Final Report for the Columbia Basin Climate Change Scenarios Project. University of Washington. Online at: http://warm.atmos.washington.edu/2860/report/ Cole, T.M., and Wells, S.A., 2015, CE-QUAL-W2-A two-dimensional, laterally averaged, hydrodynamic and water-quality model, version 3.72: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Portland State University, Portland, OR. Costanzo, S. H. Kelsey, T. Saxby. 2015. Willamette River Report Card 2015, Scores and Scoring Methodology. Integration & Application Network, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. Online at: https://ecoreportcard.org/report-cards/willametteriver/publications/2015-willamette-methods-report/ Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2002. Memorandum for the Heads of Federal Agencies, Cooperating Agencies in Implementing the Procedural Requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. Executive Office of the President. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2012. Final Guidance on Improving the Process for Preparing Efficient and Timely Environmental Reviews Under the National Environmental Policy Act. Online at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/nepa/efficiencies-guidance Dalton, M.M., K.D. Dello, L. Hawkins, P.W. Mote, and D.E. Rupp. 2017. The Third Oregon Climate Assessment Report. Oregon Climate Change Research Institute, College of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. Glick, R.M. and M. Smith. 2015. Municipal Water Rights, Recent Rulings in Washington & Oregon, The Water Report, Water Rights, Water Quality & Water Solutions in the West. Issues #133, March 15, 2015. Online at: http://www.energyenvironmentallaw.com/files/2015/03/glick.pdf Myers, J., C. Busack, D. Rawding, A. Marshall, D. Teel, D.M. Van Doornik, and M.T. Maher. 2006. Historical Population Structure of Pacific Salmonids in the Willamette River and Lower Columbia River Basins. U.S. Dept. Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 137 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service Technical Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-73. Online at: https://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/25/302_04042006_153011_PopIdTM73Final.pdf. Griffith, G.E. 1983. Patterns of Water Resource Decision-Making: Minimum Stream Flows in the Willamette Basin. Department of Geography, Oregon State University. Jaeger, W., A.J. Plantinga, C. Langpap, D. Bigelow, and K. Moore. 2017. Water, Economics, and Climate Change in the Willamette Basin, Oregon. EM 9157. Oregon State University Extension Service. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008. Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Consultation Biological Opinion & Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation & Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NMFS Northwest Region. Online at: https://www.nwcouncil.org/media/15608/willamette_biop_final_part1_july_2008.pdf National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2016. 2016 5-Year Review: Summary & Evaluation of Upper Willamette River Steelhead and Upper Willamette River Chinook. West Coast Region Portland, OR. Online at: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/status_reviews/salmon_steelhead/2016/2016_upperwillamette.pdf. Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NFSC). 2015. Status Review Update For Pacific Salmon And Steelhead Listed Under The Endangered Species Act: Pacific Northwest. Online at: https://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/11/8623_03072016_124156_Ford-NWSalmonBioStatusReviewUpdateDec%2021-2015%20v2.pdf Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NWPCC). 2015. Memo from Karl Weist, Fish and Wildlife Policy Analyst, Oregon to Council Members, Update on the Willamette Wildlife Settlement Agreement. Dated March 3, 2015. Online at: https://www.nwcouncil.org/media/7148930/f5.pdf Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2015. More Information About The Willamette River Report Card Water Quality Indicator. Laboratory and Environmental Assessment Program. Online at: http://www.oregon.gov/deq/FilterDocs/WillwqRpt.pdf Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries Service (ODFW & NMFS). 2011. Upper Willamette River Conservation and Recovery Plan for Chinook Salmon and Steelhead. NMFS Northwest Region. Online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/chinook_steelhead_upperwillametteriver.pdf. Oregon Water Resources Board (OWRB). 1967. Willamette River Basin. Salem, OR. Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD). 2015. 2015 Statewide Long-Term Water Demand Forecast, Oregon’s Integrated Water Strategy. Online at http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/LAW/docs/IWRS/OWRD_2015_Statewide_LongTerm_Water_Demand_Forecast.pdf Rounds, S.A. and L.E. Stratton-Garvin. In Prep. Estimating Water Temperature in the Willamette River as a Function of Streamflow and Air Temperature. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report xxxx. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1955. Master Plan Reservoir Management and Public Use Development, Detroit Project, North Santiam River, Oregon. Portland District. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 138 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1963. Hills Creek Reservoir, Middle Fork Willamette River, Oregon. Design Memorandum No. 15B. Joint Master Plan Reservoir Management, and Public Use Development. Portland District. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1974. Blue River Lake Master Plan Design Memorandum No. 17. Portland District. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1974a. Cougar Lake Master Plan Design Memorandum No. 18. Portland District. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1976. Foster Lake Master Plan, South Santiam River, Oregon. Design Memorandum No. 14. Portland District. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1980. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Operations and Maintenance of the Willamette Reservoir System. Portland District. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Mid-Willamette Valley Projects - Foster, Green Peter, Big Cliff. Master Plan for Resource Use, Parts I and II. Portland District. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987a. Upper Willamette Valley Projects, Part 1 Project-Wide Resource Use Objectives. Portland District. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1988. Upper Willamette Valley Projects, Master Plan for Resource Use, Part 2A, Fern Ridge Lake Plan of Management and Development. Portland District. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1989. Upper Willamette Valley Projects, Master Plan for Resource Use, Part 2B, Cottage Grove Lake Plan of Management and Development. Portland District. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1989a. Upper Willamette Valley Projects, Master Plan for Resource Use, Part 2C, Dorena Lake Plan of Management and Development. Portland District. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1992. Upper Willamette Valley Projects, Master Plan for Resource Use, Part 2D, Lookout Point and Dexter Lakes Plan of Management and Development. Portland District. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1994. Upper Willamette Valley Projects, Master Plan for Resource Use, Part 2F, Fall Creek Lake Plan of Management and Development. Portland District. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1995. Willamette River Temperature Control, McKenzie Subbasin, Oregon. Final Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement. Portland District. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1998. Water Supply Handbook, A Handbook on Water Supply Planning and Resource Management. Institute for Water Resources, Water Resources Support Center. Revised IWR Report 96-PS-4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2000. Biological Assessment, Biological Assessment of the Effects of the Willamette River Basin Flood Control Project on Species Listed Under the Endangered Species Act. USACE Portland District, Bonneville Power Administration, Bureau of Reclamation. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 139 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2000a. Willamette Basin Reservoir Study, Criteria and Discussion of Existing and Base Conditions, Revised January 2000. Portland District. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2007. Supplemental Biological Assessment of the Effects of the Willamette River Basin Flood Control Project on Species Listed Under the Endangered Species Act. USACE Portland District, Bonneville Power Administration, Bureau of Reclamation. Submitted to the USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service. Online at: http://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/Portals/24/docs/environment/biop/Final_Will_Suppl_BA.pdf U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2009. Willamette Valley Projects Configuration/Operation Plan (COP), Phase I Report. Portland District. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2013. Willamette River Floodplain Restoration Study Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment. Portland District. Online at: http://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/Portals/24/docs/announcements/EA/WRFS__EA_draft_feasibility.pdf U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2014. Coast Fork Willamette River, Oregon Final Surplus Water Letter Report Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Portland District. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2015. Letter from Joyce E. Casey, Chief Environmental Resources Branch, USACE, Portland District to the Honorable Dan Courtney, Chair of the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians, dated November 5, 2015. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2015a. Letter from Joyce E. Casey, Chief Environmental Resources Branch, USACE, Portland District to the Honorable William B. Iyall, Chair of the Cowlitz Indian Tribe, dated November 5, 2015. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2015b. Letter from Joyce E. Casey, Chief Environmental Resources Branch, USACE, Portland District to the Honorable Reyn Leno, Chair of the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, dated November 5, 2015. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2015c. Letter from Joyce E. Casey, Chief Environmental Resources Branch, USACE, Portland District to the Honorable Delores Pigsley, Chair of the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians, dated November 5, 2015. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2015d. Letter from Joyce E. Casey, Chief Environmental Resources Branch, USACE, Portland District to the Honorable E. Austin Green, Chair of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, dated November 5, 2015. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2015e. Memorandum for Record: Implementation of Environmental Flows in the Willamette Valley dated 7 July 2015. ECNWP-EC-HY. Portland District. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2015f. Willamette Valley Projects Configuration/Operation Plan (COP), Phase II Report. Portland District. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2016. Letter from Joyce E. Casey, Chief Environmental Resources Branch, USACE, Portland District to F. Lorraine Bodi, Vice President Environment, Fish and Wildlife, Bonneville Power Administration, dated April 26, 2016. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 140 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2016a. Letter from Joyce E. Casey, Chief Environmental Resources Branch, USACE, Portland District to Ms. Dawn Wiedmeier, Area Manager, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, dated April 26, 2016. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2016b. Letter from Joyce E. Casey, Chief Environmental Resources Branch, USACE, Portland District to Dr. Kim Kratz, Assistant Regional Administrator, Oregon/Washington Coastal Area Office, NOAA Fisheries West Coast Region. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2016c. Letter from Joyce E. Casey, Chief Environmental Resources Branch, USACE, Portland District to Ms. Robyn Thorson, Regional Director, Pacific Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, dated May 13, 2016. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2016d. Letter from Joyce E. Casey, Chief Environmental Resources Branch, USACE, Portland District to Ms. Kathy Stangl District Manager, Eugene District, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, dated April 26, 2016. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2016e. Letter from Joyce E. Casey, Chief Environmental Resources Branch, USACE, Portland District to Mr. Tracy Beck, Forest Supervisor, Willamette National Forest, dated April 26, 2016. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2016f. Letter from Joyce E. Casey, Chief Environmental Resources Branch, USACE, Portland District to Ms. Alice Carlton, Forest Supervisor, Umpqua National Forest, dated April 26, 2016. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2016g. Scoping Public Notice. Willamette River Basin Review Feasibility Study and National Environmental Policy Act. Portland District. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2016h. Engineering and Construction Bulletin No. 2016-25, Guidance for Incorporating Climate Change Impacts into Inland Hydrology in Civil Works Studies, Designs, and Projects. Online at: http://www.wbdg.org/FFC/ARMYCOE/COEECB/ecb_2016_25.pdf U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2017. DRAFT Willamette Fish Operations Plan, Willamette Valley Project. Portland District. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2017a. Interim Drought Contingency Plan for the Willamette Valley Project. Portland District. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2017b. Official coordination request for non-routine operations and maintenance – 17DET02 North Santiam Temperature Targets. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBOR). 2009. Fact Sheet: The Willamette River Basin Project Biological Opinion and Reclamation’s Marketing Program. Online at: https://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/esa/oregon/willamette/ba-willametfs-2009.pdf U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBOR). 2012. Reclamation’s NEPA Handbook. Online at: https://www.usbr.gov/nepa/docs/NEPA_Handbook2012.pdf. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBOR). 2017. Email from Carolyn R. Chad, Colombia-Cascades Area Office Deputy Area Manager to Kathryn L. Warner, USACE Portland District. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBOR). 2017a. Junction City Water Control District Contract. Categorical Exclusion Checklist PN-FBO-CE-2017-1. Water Service Contract - Willamette River Basin Project, Oregon. Dated January 4, 2017. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 141 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2010. Oregon Nursery and Greenhouse Survey 2010. USDA-NASS Oregon Field Office Online at: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Oregon/Publications/Horticulture/2010_nursery.pdf U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2016. Letter from Tracy Beck, Forest Supervisor, Willamette National Forest to Joyce E. Casey, Chief Environmental Resources Branch, USACE, Portland District, dated June 29, 2016. U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE). 2016. Letter from F. Lorraine Bodi, Vice President Environment, Fish and Wildlife, Bonneville Power Administration to Joyce E. Casey, Chief Environmental Resources Branch, USACE, Portland District, dated May 31, 2016. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2013. Watershed Modeling to Assess the Sensitivity of Streamflow, Nutrient, and Sediment Loads to Potential Climate Change and Urban Development in 20 U.S. Watersheds. EPA/600/R-12/058F. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Biological Opinion on the Continued Operation and Maintenance of the Willamette River Basin Project and Effects to Oregon Chub, Bull Trout, and Bull Trout Critical Habitat as Designated Under the Endangered Species Act, USFWS Final Biological Opinion on the Willamette River Flood Control Project. Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008a. Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) 50 year review: Summary and evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. Online at: https://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout/pdf/Bull%20Trout%205YR%20final%20signed%20042508.pdf. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Report to Congress on Recovery of Threatened and Endangered Species, Fiscal Years 2009 – 2010. Online at: https://www.fws.gov/ENDANGERED/esa-library/pdf/Recovery_Report_2010.pdf. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015. Recovery Plan for the Coterminous United States Population of Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Pacific Region. Online at: https://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout/pdf/Final_Bull_Trout_Recovery_Plan_092915.pdf. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016. Letter from Kevin S. Foerster, Acting Regional Director, Pacific Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, dated June 10, 2016. U.S. Geological Service (USGS). 2010. Thermal Effect of Dams in the Willamette River Basin, Oregon. Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5153. Online at: https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5153/ Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 142 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 13 Glossary Acre-foot (AF): the volume of water required to cover one acre to a depth of one foot and is equivalent to 43,560 cubic feet or 325,850 gallons. Action Agencies: The three federal agencies that have participated in the ESA Section 7 consultation with NMFS and the USFWS on the continued operation of the Willamette Valley Project. The three agencies are the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and Bonneville Power Administration. Bankfull: The level of discharge from a reservoir at which any further increase in the discharge would result in water moving into the floodplain. Conservation Storage: The specified volume of a reservoir or set of reservoirs dedicated to water storage for use in meeting water needs, including municipal, domestic, agricultural irrigation, fish and wildlife flow augmentation, and recreation. Cost of M&I Storage: The cost of authorized M&I water supply storage in new and existing projects will be the total construction cost allocated to the water supply storage space. This cost will include (as appropriate) interest during construction and interest after the ten-year interest free period. This cost will also include (as appropriate), the costs of water supply conduits and the cost of past expenditures for items such as repair, replacement, rehabilitation and reconstruction. The share of the users cost of storage represented in the repayment agreement will be the same ratio as the share of the users storage space is to the total water supply storage space. Cubic foot per second (CFS): is the rate of discharge representing a volume of one cubic foot passing a given point during one second and is equivalent to approximately 7.48 gallons per second or 448.8 gallons per minute. The volume of water represented by a flow of one cubic foot per second for 24 hours is equivalent to approximately 86,400 cubic feet, approximately 1.983 acre-feet or approximately 646,272 gallons. Duty: Often referred to in combination with a specified maximum instantaneous withdrawal rate for irrigation (the maximum flow of water in cubic feet per second or gallons per minute). Duty represents the maximum volume of water in acre-feet per acre per year that may be diverted under irrigation water rights in Oregon. Flood Stage: The water surface elevation at which hazards to life, property or commerce begin to occur. The issuance of flood (or in some cases flash flood) warnings is linked to flood stage. Instream Use: Any use that supports benefits derived from keeping water flowing in-channel. Most often the term describes the public uses defined in ORS 537.332: recreation, pollution abatement, navigation, and an array of environmental purposes, including fish and wildlife preservation. Instream uses are eligible for protection under state law through instream water rights. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 143 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Instream Water Right: A water right held in trust for the people of the State of Oregon by the Water Resources Department. Instream water rights allocate water for a variety of instream uses listed in ORS 537.332. Live flow: (1) The streamflow generated by a watershed prior to any human use; (2) The flow of a stream minus any augmentation from water released by upstream reservoirs. Minimum Perennial Streamflow: An amount of water allocated in Oregon by administrative rule to support fish, recreation, and water quality needs at a specific stream point or reach. As precursors to instream water rights, “minimum flows” were assigned a priority date and managed conjunctively with other water rights, except they could be waived. Most have been converted to instream water rights, as required by ORS 537.356, though minimum perennial streamflows for Willamette River tributaries downstream of WBV projects have not. Municipal and Industrial (M&I) : M&I water supply has been defined by the Corps to mean water supply for uses customarily found in the operation of municipal water systems and for uses in industrial processes. Reallocation: the reassignment of the use of existing storage space in a reservoir project (or system of reservoirs) to a higher and better use. Reservoir: a natural or artificial lake or pond in which water is collected for beneficial use or purpose. Oregon Administrative Rule 690-250-0010(13). Rule Curve: The rule curve shows the maximum elevation to which the Corps can fill a reservoir during various times during the year, with the exception of real-time flood operations. Secondary Use Permit: Oregon law maintains a distinction between the oft-coupled activities of impounding water and then using it, by requiring two different permits. Issued by OWRD, the secondary use permit provides an applicant the authorization required to apply stored water to a place of use. Single Source Redundancy: an M&I backup water supply that provides an alternative source of water so that municipalities have a degree of system resilience to reduce outage risk. Stored Water: water held in conservation storage. Stored Water Right: any water impounded in a reservoir under the provisions of an established right to store water. In Oregon, the right to store water (under this provision) is different from the right to use water. Oregon Administrative Rule 690-250-0010(10). Surplus Water: water available at any reservoir that the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) determines is not required during a specified time period to accomplish an authorized federal purpose or purposes of that reservoir, for any of the following reasons: (i) because the authorized purpose or purposes for which such water was originally intended have not fully developed; or (ii) because the need for water to accomplish such authorized purpose or purposes has lessened; or (iii) because the amount of water to be withdrawn, in combination with any other such withdrawals during the specified time period, would have virtually no effect on operations for authorized purposes. Proposed Definition from 81 Fed. Reg. 91556, 91589 (Dec. 16, 2016). Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 144 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Transfer: An authorization issued by the OWRD to change a water right’s type of use, character of use, place of use, or point of diversion. Water Control Diagram: Graphic representations of reservoir water levels; used to guide reservoir operations. Water Use Permit: A provisional authorization issued by OWRD allowing a party to divert or pump a specific amount of water for a specific use at a specific location. If water is put to beneficial use within the time period allowed by law and in accordance with any permit terms, OWRD finalizes the permission in the form of a water right certificate. Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 145 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study 14 List of Acronyms ADD Average Daily Demand AI Agricultural Irrigation APE Area of Potential Effect ASR Aquifer Storage and Recovery BA Biological Assessment BiOp Biological Opinion B.P. Before Present BPA Bonneville Power Administration BLM Bureau of Land Management CAP Continuing Authorities Program CDL Cropland Data Layer CEQ Council on Environmental Quality C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations cfs Cubic Feet Per Second COP Configuration / Operation Plan Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers DWD Diverted Water Demand E-flow Environmental Flows EIS Environmental Impact Statement ESA Endangered Species Act FCSA Feasibility Cost Share Agreement FMWQT Flow Management Water Quality Team FR/EA Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment FS Feasibility Study F&W Fish and Wildlife GI General Investigation Program GIS Geographic Information System GPCD Gallons Per Capita Day HEC Hydrologic Engineering Center HGMP Hatchery Genetic Management Plan MAF million acre-feet Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 146 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study M&I Municipal and Industrial MDD Maximum Daily Demand MGD million gallons per day MPSF Minimum Perennial Streamflow NED National Economic Development NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NPS National Park Service NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service ODA Oregon Department of Agriculture ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife OEA Oregon Office of Economic Analysis OHA Oregon Health Authority OWQI Oregon Water Quality Index OWRD Oregon Water Resources Department POU Place of Use POR period of record PWB Portland Water Bureau Reclamation U.S. Bureau of Reclamation ResSim Reservoir System Simulation Program RM&E Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation RPA Reasonable and Prudent Alternative SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SSI Self-Supplied Industrial TCP Traditional Cultural Property TSP Tentatively Selected Plan UDV Unit Day Value UGB Urban Growth Boundary USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USFS U.S. Forest Service USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 147 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study USGS U.S. Geological Survey UWR Upper Willamette River WATER Willamette Action Team for Ecosystem Restoration WCP Willamette Conservation Plan WFOP Willamette Fish Operations Plan WFPOM Willamette Fish Passage Operations & Maintenance WMCP Water Management and Conservation Plan WRIS Water Rights Information System WSMP Water System Master Plan WVP Willamette Valley Project Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment Page 148